People moaning about how his salary on the books is killing us is crazy. Yes it effects our wage budget when coming to sign new players. But what most people really don't understand that the club will not really be paying much of his wages once he is out for more than a couple of weeks just like your employer. The insurance company will be paying him a fraction of his wage instead. So whilst as annoying his injury records has been for us, he really is an outstanding player to have when available. And that will win us more points throughout the rest of the season.
Are you seriously saying we have an insurance policy that pays a part of Chuk's wages when he is injured? And then that we don't pick up the rest of his salary?
I'd be amazed if we even have an insurance policy covering Chuks. Given his injury record, the premiums would be astronomic.
And given the contract he has, good luck in saying we aren't going to pay you the rest of your salary now!
Every club and player will be insured. I believe it's something also to do with the PFA. But I could be wrong on the latter.
But yes they will be insured and I think it's something what goes along the line with the medical. But like I had mentioned, I will try and find the Fozcast episode as I'm sure it will be interesting for many on here.... (Knowing my luck it'll turn out to be a crouch podcast and I'm searching the wrong places. )
There once was a player called Chuks Who has cost Charlton mega bucks He plays now and then Due to another injury...agin 🤦♂️ Will we ever see him play.....with any luck!
Decent attempt at a Limerick ET, though VAR have ruled lines 3 and 4 a non rhyme; possibly a half rhyme🤔
Chuks was a fine striker which showed But many time with injuries he slowed Chuks had issues with muscles It affected him in football tussles So he lost his nickname cheat code.
There once was a player called Chuks Who has cost Charlton mega bucks He plays now and then Due to another injury...agin 🤦♂️ Will we ever see him play.....with any luck!
Decent attempt at a Limerick ET, though VAR have ruled lines 3 and 4 a non rhyme; possibly a half rhyme🤔
Chuks was a fine striker which showed But many time with injuries he slowed Chuks had issues with muscles It affected him in football tussles So he lost his nickname cheat code.
People moaning about how his salary on the books is killing us is crazy. Yes it effects our wage budget when coming to sign new players. But what most people really don't understand that the club will not really be paying much of his wages once he is out for more than a couple of weeks just like your employer. The insurance company will be paying him a fraction of his wage instead. So whilst as annoying his injury records has been for us, he really is an outstanding player to have when available. And that will win us more points throughout the rest of the season.
He can only win us points by playing and scoring goals. He spends so little time on the pitch nowadays that his contribution is minimal. Far better to let him go in the summer when his contract expires and replace him with someone who can actually play most games.
Not disregarding the fact we need someone who can play the games but when the salary talk and negativity towards him like he's ruining the club, I think that's where my point is to try and say it's stupid.
Yes I agree. To say he's ruining the club is wrong. But 6k per week which he's apparently earning would be much better spent on someone else.
But as mentioned the club are not spending 6k per week when he is injured. This is covered by the insurance and the club will pay more of a minimal wage if anything. There was a Ben Foster podcast where he broke down what actually happens when a player is out long term injured and it's honestly interesting for many to listen and understand. I'll try and find it.
Surely that's just for long term serious injuries, not the endless 2 or 3 month absences Chuks suffers from?
Otherwise insurance companies would be paying the wages for several players at every club, which would be completely uneconomic.
People moaning about how his salary on the books is killing us is crazy. Yes it effects our wage budget when coming to sign new players. But what most people really don't understand that the club will not really be paying much of his wages once he is out for more than a couple of weeks just like your employer. The insurance company will be paying him a fraction of his wage instead. So whilst as annoying his injury records has been for us, he really is an outstanding player to have when available. And that will win us more points throughout the rest of the season.
He can only win us points by playing and scoring goals. He spends so little time on the pitch nowadays that his contribution is minimal. Far better to let him go in the summer when his contract expires and replace him with someone who can actually play most games.
Not disregarding the fact we need someone who can play the games but when the salary talk and negativity towards him like he's ruining the club, I think that's where my point is to try and say it's stupid.
Yes I agree. To say he's ruining the club is wrong. But 6k per week which he's apparently earning would be much better spent on someone else.
But as mentioned the club are not spending 6k per week when he is injured. This is covered by the insurance and the club will pay more of a minimal wage if anything. There was a Ben Foster podcast where he broke down what actually happens when a player is out long term injured and it's honestly interesting for many to listen and understand. I'll try and find it.
Surely that's just for long term serious injuries, not the endless 2 or 3 month absences Chuks suffers from?
Otherwise insurance companies would be paying the wages for several players at every club, which would be completely uneconomic.
From what I can remember is that once it hit a certain amount of weeks for that particular injury then it will be covered. So the clubs cover the first 2 weeks or something like that and after that it's under insurance. But as mentioned it will be a fraction of their wages and not the full amount.
People moaning about how his salary on the books is killing us is crazy. Yes it effects our wage budget when coming to sign new players. But what most people really don't understand that the club will not really be paying much of his wages once he is out for more than a couple of weeks just like your employer. The insurance company will be paying him a fraction of his wage instead. So whilst as annoying his injury records has been for us, he really is an outstanding player to have when available. And that will win us more points throughout the rest of the season.
He can only win us points by playing and scoring goals. He spends so little time on the pitch nowadays that his contribution is minimal. Far better to let him go in the summer when his contract expires and replace him with someone who can actually play most games.
Not disregarding the fact we need someone who can play the games but when the salary talk and negativity towards him like he's ruining the club, I think that's where my point is to try and say it's stupid.
Yes I agree. To say he's ruining the club is wrong. But 6k per week which he's apparently earning would be much better spent on someone else.
But as mentioned the club are not spending 6k per week when he is injured. This is covered by the insurance and the club will pay more of a minimal wage if anything. There was a Ben Foster podcast where he broke down what actually happens when a player is out long term injured and it's honestly interesting for many to listen and understand. I'll try and find it.
Surely that's just for long term serious injuries, not the endless 2 or 3 month absences Chuks suffers from?
Otherwise insurance companies would be paying the wages for several players at every club, which would be completely uneconomic.
From what I can remember is that once it hit a certain amount of weeks for that particular injury then it will be covered. So the clubs cover the first 2 weeks or something like that and after that it's under insurance. But as mentioned it will be a fraction of their wages and not the full amount.
I do agree with you that Chuks isn't ruining things, far from it. I do think though his injury record and pretty sparse appearances are costing us in the striker dept. Let's say for the argument he's on £6k a week. If he doesn't play we will be getting an insurance payout but I don't imagine it kicks in if he's on the bench or coming on as a sub. Making the assumption he 'appears' for 50% of games, the club is on the hook for £3k each week on average. So at best NJ can say to the board........ 'let's be realistic about Chuks, we all know he's only good for 50% so can I use the 50% insurance payout to bring in another striker for £3k per week'? Assuming the board agree with this £150k pa 'gamble' NJ has half a season with a £6k striker and half a season with a £3k striker (everything else being equal, the £3k guy won't be picked for half the games as Chuks will be preferred). If the board don't agree with the 'gamble' we end up with Chuks only, i.e. 50% of a £6k striker. Or the board may say let's gamble the lot, i.e. bring in a £6k striker in addition to Chuks and if Chuks is 100% fit we'll have the luxury of 2 £6k strikers........... but looking at the squad..... I don't think this last one is the one that happened.
People moaning about how his salary on the books is killing us is crazy. Yes it effects our wage budget when coming to sign new players. But what most people really don't understand that the club will not really be paying much of his wages once he is out for more than a couple of weeks just like your employer. The insurance company will be paying him a fraction of his wage instead. So whilst as annoying his injury records has been for us, he really is an outstanding player to have when available. And that will win us more points throughout the rest of the season.
He can only win us points by playing and scoring goals. He spends so little time on the pitch nowadays that his contribution is minimal. Far better to let him go in the summer when his contract expires and replace him with someone who can actually play most games.
Not disregarding the fact we need someone who can play the games but when the salary talk and negativity towards him like he's ruining the club, I think that's where my point is to try and say it's stupid.
Yes I agree. To say he's ruining the club is wrong. But 6k per week which he's apparently earning would be much better spent on someone else.
But as mentioned the club are not spending 6k per week when he is injured. This is covered by the insurance and the club will pay more of a minimal wage if anything. There was a Ben Foster podcast where he broke down what actually happens when a player is out long term injured and it's honestly interesting for many to listen and understand. I'll try and find it.
I would expect it is not £6k just because he is on the pitch as it will be made up of a basic plus win, goal bonuses, possibly even minutes on the pitch.
Sorry 21/22 so 3.5 including this which wont but doesn't improve the stats much.
It’s 2024 and he re-signed in 2022. I’ve no idea why you’re trying to exaggerate the length as it’s not even needed to try and prove a point
Ok two years plus two halves. January 2022 and he's injured so unlikely to play much until 2025 earliest and wont play 90. So currently 16 cameo games per season. Ok you're pernickety, but what exactly is your point?
Is fact check compulsory for moderators? Or you joining the queue of posters that like to get on my case? OK I PWP. There are many on here that get away with murder.
Chuks returned for 21/22 (half), 22/23, 23/24, 24/25 (half). So AFKA is also incorrect, or do moderators have a get out of jail free card? A better case for four seasons that he has been on our books than two.
I blame Wikipedia for not including a subtotal for his Brum spell, so it merged into his Addicks spell. Posting on a phone, your view is limited.
OK I mis-remembered our old Alan Campbell from 50+ years ago. Does it make me a serial poster of false facts?
Chuks returned for 21/22 (half), 22/23, 23/24, 24/25 (half). So AFKA is also incorrect, or do moderators have a get out of jail free card? A better case for four seasons that he has been on our books than two.
I blame Wikipedia for not including a subtotal for his Brum spell, so it merged into his Addicks spell. Posting on a phone, your view is limited.
OK I mis-remembered our old Alan Campbell from 50+ years ago. Does it make me a serial poster of false facts?
We haven't played anywhere near half the games yet this season.
You also spout absolute bollocks on a number of topics so you have previous
Sorry 21/22 so 3.5 including this which wont but doesn't improve the stats much.
It’s 2024 and he re-signed in 2022. I’ve no idea why you’re trying to exaggerate the length as it’s not even needed to try and prove a point
Ok two years plus two halves. January 2022 and he's injured so unlikely to play much until 2025 earliest and wont play 90. So currently 16 cameo games per season. Ok you're pernickety, but what exactly is your point?
Is fact check compulsory for moderators? Or you joining the queue of posters that like to get on my case? OK I PWP. There are many on here that get away with murder.
It looks like we have had his handful of appearances early this season. Usually he pops up for a few games later in the season, everyone then says we have missed him this season, then retreats again to the treatment table.
I see the old mention of a pay as you play deal for him, which i used to argue for but at this point we need to cut losses at end of the season. The fact is (aside from one great goal) he hasn't had the same impact he used to have and even if it is significantly reduced terms you have to consider the other resources like time/energy in treating him, training him on top of the moral duty which is he clearly isnt fit enough to be a professional footballer and these injuries may take a toll on his wider health as he ages.
It looks like we have had his handful of appearances early this season. Usually he pops up for a few games later in the season, everyone then says we have missed him this season, then retreats again to the treatment table.
Not a fan of these posts that almost suggest he’s doing it deliberately, or has control over whether he’s injured or not.
I hope this latest injury lay off puts an end to the ‘only play him for 20 minutes’ tactics.
I mentioned previously most/many of Chuks injuries have happened when his minutes have been managed.
I’m not saying play him 90 minutes. But if he has the fitness levels to last, and we have a shocking first half for instance - I’d much rather see him on early instead of after the game has drifted away from us.
Comments
But yes they will be insured and I think it's something what goes along the line with the medical. But like I had mentioned, I will try and find the Fozcast episode as I'm sure it will be interesting for many on here.... (Knowing my luck it'll turn out to be a crouch podcast and I'm searching the wrong places.
Decent attempt at a Limerick ET, though VAR have ruled lines 3 and 4 a non rhyme; possibly a half rhyme🤔
Chuks was a fine striker which showed
But many time with injuries he slowed
Chuks had issues with muscles
It affected him in football tussles
So he lost his nickname cheat code.
Sorry Soapbox...Must try harder next time...🤦♂️
Mind you VAR is naff anyway...
Otherwise insurance companies would be paying the wages for several players at every club, which would be completely uneconomic.
It's not like teams will be queuing up to sign him. And I would expect him to have to pass a very stringent medical.
It's kind of "make or break" time for Chuks...
Having said that, I really hope we can sort out a mutually agreeable contract because on his day he is our best forward.
Save the 6k a week for someone who can actually play regularly.
Is fact check compulsory for moderators? Or you joining the queue of posters that like to get on my case? OK I PWP. There are many on here that get away with murder.
Perhaps fact check your own posts and people won’t need to correct you?
22/23, 23/24, 24/25 (half). So AFKA is also incorrect, or do moderators have a get out of jail free card? A better case for four seasons that he has been on our books than two.
I blame Wikipedia for not including a subtotal for his Brum spell, so it merged into his Addicks spell. Posting on a phone, your view is limited.
OK I mis-remembered our old Alan Campbell from 50+ years ago. Does it make me a serial poster of false facts?
You also spout absolute bollocks on a number of topics so you have previous
I mentioned previously most/many of Chuks injuries have happened when his minutes have been managed.
I’m not saying play him 90 minutes. But if he has the fitness levels to last, and we have a shocking first half for instance - I’d much rather see him on early instead of after the game has drifted away from us.