Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Rumours Rumours - Summer 2021 edition (Deadline Day from p814)
Comments
-
Agree, sort of... but just wonder IF that happened and he banged in 10 goals in the first dozen games, how opinions will change, but really not for me.Valley11 said:Putting the shithousery aside, Taylor’s strength was playing to 100%. I suspect age and a big pay packet has dulled his determination. No thanks.0 -
Really hope Chuks stays. We’ll be a better promotion prospect with his quality even off the bench. I will say however that I find it amazing if Chuks gets a move to The Championship without proof he’s able to play 90 minutes of football at least once a week. Seems a basic requirement for a pro footballer but stranger things have happened.5
-
Will be pretty disappointed if Chuks leaves. 15 goals will be hard to replace.14
-
I don’t even care, I would have Lyle back in a flash!2
-
Could you get a 4th striker who could score 10 goals in the game time they would get, who would be happy with that amount of game time? Although it's a nice problem to have to try and find the answer to.LargeAddick said:
I get all that but let's say we start the season with four strikers - Washington, Stockley, Schwartz and Aneke. At some point in the season Stockley is sent off and misses three games. This coincides with both Washington and Schwartz being injured. So we are left with Aneke, a great impact sub for 30 minutes, but whom we now need to play three games in a week, 90 minutes a game. That's us buggered then. Can we afford to carry such a player? Would we be better off having a fourth striker who will score ten goals in a season but can actually last 90 minutes? It's a tough call imo.RC_CAFC said:
I don’t know what our financial budget is for this season, but to me having a squad where we do have some plan b’s is exactly what we should be aspiring to and hopefully CAN now afford.RonnieMoore said:DOUCHER said:
we've made him an offer as other clubs have - we also know his medical conditionChunes said:
He's out of contract. There won't be any offers.DOUCHER said:
yes but we don't have infinite resources - i rate chucks highly but we have to trust the recruitment team to balance up the offer with his worthCafc43v3r said:I honestly can't get my head round the fact people don't think having a player that can score 15 plus goals a season off the bench is a good thing.
The problem last season is we didn't have the starters, for large portions of it, not that we had a super sub.
BTW the offer from Blackburn has either been turned down or withdrawn. They were one of 3 offers he had on the table early last week. I have no idea who the 3rd one was.
We're going to have a striker on the bench, I hope that it's Chuks. We may find a better starting striker but we won't find a better player for that role.More importantly we can’t really afford to have a luxury player who may change the game for 30 mins .. championship teams can afford itThis forum screams out the need for a proven goal scorer constantly and now we’ve got one (albeit not one I’d solely rely upon) we’re saying he’s replaceable?!
Let’s be clear, for what Chuks Aneke brought us last year, he’s irreplaceable in league 1. We need another goalscorer of course but to go up we need a squad where everyone brings something to the table.
I would rather have a Chuks that can play 30-60 minutes in almost every game than an Igor who can play 90 minutes but is likely in spend half the season injured.2 -
It’s also not just the goals Aneke brings to us, he terrifies defenders, sides put 2 players on him immediately, freeing up space for other attacking players.If he could consistently play an hour, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation and everyone would be hoping he signs a new contract.13
-
I agree it’s a dilemma.LargeAddick said:
I get all that but let's say we start the season with four strikers - Washington, Stockley, Schwartz and Aneke. At some point in the season Stockley is sent off and misses three games. This coincides with both Washington and Schwartz being injured. So we are left with Aneke, a great impact sub for 30 minutes, but whom we now need to play three games in a week, 90 minutes a game. That's us buggered then. Can we afford to carry such a player? Would we be better off having a fourth striker who will score ten goals in a season but can actually last 90 minutes? It's a tough call imo.RC_CAFC said:
I don’t know what our financial budget is for this season, but to me having a squad where we do have some plan b’s is exactly what we should be aspiring to and hopefully CAN now afford.RonnieMoore said:DOUCHER said:
we've made him an offer as other clubs have - we also know his medical conditionChunes said:
He's out of contract. There won't be any offers.DOUCHER said:
yes but we don't have infinite resources - i rate chucks highly but we have to trust the recruitment team to balance up the offer with his worthCafc43v3r said:I honestly can't get my head round the fact people don't think having a player that can score 15 plus goals a season off the bench is a good thing.
The problem last season is we didn't have the starters, for large portions of it, not that we had a super sub.
BTW the offer from Blackburn has either been turned down or withdrawn. They were one of 3 offers he had on the table early last week. I have no idea who the 3rd one was.
We're going to have a striker on the bench, I hope that it's Chuks. We may find a better starting striker but we won't find a better player for that role.More importantly we can’t really afford to have a luxury player who may change the game for 30 mins .. championship teams can afford itThis forum screams out the need for a proven goal scorer constantly and now we’ve got one (albeit not one I’d solely rely upon) we’re saying he’s replaceable?!
Let’s be clear, for what Chuks Aneke brought us last year, he’s irreplaceable in league 1. We need another goalscorer of course but to go up we need a squad where everyone brings something to the table.
For me, the luxury player at the moment out of those 4 is Schwartz. Aneke, Stockley and Washington have proved they could be part of a successful campaign, in differing roles. Swap Schwartz for a proven league 1 striker such as Pigott (just a for instance in this scenario) and then I think those 4 are strong enough.
I know I’ve said it already but he has the highest goals per minutes on pitch in the football league AND he brings more than just goalscoring when he’s on the pitch.3 -
I think as LA mentions though, Chuks' situation doesn't actually depend entirely on him and him alone though. If we get Stockley back for example that gives us a trump card as Aneke is no longer the only "target man" option at the club.
These deals don't all happen in a vacuum.1 -
I really do see the merits of having an impact player that can get you 15 goals in a season. My big worry would be signing a Stockley type forward who gets injured or losses form and your backup cannot play 90 minutes. Aneke is good at what he does, but if he cannot play 90 minutes when needed that negates his worth elsewhere. An initial backup striker, who is pushing your main striker both in stamina and goal scoring form is the ideal scenario.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Polite applause for the goals but no “just can’t get enough “singing.jacob_CAFC said:
A small amount of sycophants would clap but I'd hope the majority of people would not be too happyUboat said:
I would be fascinated to see the reaction if he came back.RonnieMoore said:Looks like Taylor available for loan from Forest0 -
You do realise this has come from Teamtalk. They are renowned for making things up to get a few clicks .BR7_addick said:
2 -
He’s worth a contract offer. He’s not worth a bidding war. We should put our offer on the table, non-negotiable, take it or leave it.
If he goes, we’ll have to find someone who can score the goals. But losing Chuks wouldn’t be the end of our promotion hopes.2 -
Just because news outlets get things wrong sometimes, you can’t blindly believe everything is made up. I’d suggest an account run by a proper journo has done some level of research into this.Bedsaddick said:
You do realise this has come from Teamtalk. They are renowned for making things up to get a few clicks .BR7_addick said:2 -
It won’t, but depending on the circumstances it might be indicative of the level of ambition we have which could end our promotion hopes.Callumcafc said:He’s worth a contract offer. He’s not worth a bidding war. We should put our offer on the table, non-negotiable, take it or leave it.
If he goes, we’ll have to find someone who can score the goals. But losing Chuks wouldn’t be the end of our promotion hopes.0 -
Not necessarily. He may need to get a certain amount of traffic to meet a target so, for example, he gets free hosting. It's not unknown for journalists to be the scum of the earth. It wasn't a group of saints who hacked all those 'phones.J BLOCK said:
Just because news outlets get things wrong sometimes, you can’t blindly believe everything is made up. I’d suggest an account run by a proper journo has done some level of research into this.Bedsaddick said:
You do realise this has come from Teamtalk. They are renowned for making things up to get a few clicks .BR7_addick said:0 -
Just seen that Paul Digby has signed a two year contract with Cambridge United after all.
Another example of an agent probably touting his client around before signing on at his existing club.
Let's hope we have similar news re Chuks soon.1 -
This will keep fans happy with rumours without having to check first
Released players: Clubs announce summer 2021 retained lists
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/57319431
0 -
Of course he’s done some research, he’s looked on Charlton Life!J BLOCK said:
Just because news outlets get things wrong sometimes, you can’t blindly believe everything is made up. I’d suggest an account run by a proper journo has done some level of research into this.Bedsaddick said:
You do realise this has come from Teamtalk. They are renowned for making things up to get a few clicks .BR7_addick said:0 -
I realised that it’s a rumour then posted it on here that is the limit of my involvement.Bedsaddick said:
You do realise this has come from Teamtalk. They are renowned for making things up to get a few clicks .BR7_addick said:0 - Sponsored links:
-
We need to keep Chuks17
-
Not really.se9addick said:
It won’t, but depending on the circumstances it might be indicative of the level of ambition we have which could end our promotion hopes.Callumcafc said:He’s worth a contract offer. He’s not worth a bidding war. We should put our offer on the table, non-negotiable, take it or leave it.
If he goes, we’ll have to find someone who can score the goals. But losing Chuks wouldn’t be the end of our promotion hopes.
Getting involved in a bidding war for someone who can only play about 20/30 minutes per game would be ridiculous.
As Callum says make him a reasonable offer and tell him to take it or leave it1 -
I doubt Charlton’s offer to Chuk’s would have pushed the boat out. We know exactly what his issues are and if they are likely to be resolved. Any other club I would think would be looking to pay based on appearances or at least heavily weighted in that way. His game time issues are really quite ridiculous.0
-
It's very early days, I suspect that we will know fairly soon and either move on or he'll sign up. Given the issues he's got playing regularly he's unlikely to get an absolute mega bucks offer unless someone is feeling extremely generous/mad.ShootersHillGuru said:I doubt Charlton’s offer to Chuk’s would have pushed the boat out. We know exactly what his issues are and if they are likely to be resolved. Any other club I would think would be looking to pay based on appearances or at least heavily weighted in that way. His game time issues are really quite ridiculous.
I'm still pretty sure he's going to be here next season honestly. Like I said before, NONE of the players offered contracts have signed anything yet (that we know of) so it's not a sign of anything in itself.0 -
But if that happens to anyone your up the creak. At any club.Carl Leaburn said:I really do see the merits of having an impact player that can get you 15 goals in a season. My big worry would be signing a Stockley type forward who gets injured or losses form and your backup cannot play 90 minutes. Aneke is good at what he does, but if he cannot play 90 minutes when needed that negates his worth elsewhere. An initial backup striker, who is pushing your main striker both in stamina and goal scoring form is the ideal scenario.
The only club I can remember that had 4 strikers, of equal or similar ability and always started 2 was United in 98-00 and even then they had kids, Giggs and Scholes who could do a job if 3 of the 4 were unavailable.
4, including Chuks, plus someone like DJ and an u23 is plenty of options.0 -
My prediction for next week (nothing to see until the 9th I reckon)
- Stockley announced on a permanent
- Randell Williams on free from Exeter
- Jordan Graham on free from Gills
- New contracts for Pearce and Watson
One big party day!!!2 -
Maccn05 said:My prediction for next week (nothing to see until the 9th I reckon)
- Stockley announced on a permanent
- Randell Williams on free from Exeter
- Jordan Graham on free from Gills
- New contracts for Pearce and Watson
One big party day!!!
0 -
0 -
What you trying to say MIA?0
-
Who’s in Asdas today ?Mendonca In Asdas said:2
This discussion has been closed.
