2022 January transfer window thread - Non Charlton, other transfers (D Day p52)

killerandflash said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Why would Wiredu agree to join us purely to be sold on for profit? I think most buy backs have a set fee but if there’s Championship interest he’s not coming back 

Because he won't have any choice if that's what the original transfer deal says

We could then sell him on ourselves if he wanted to go elsewhere

The deal surely couldn't compel Wiredu to sign a contract with us, fairly sure that would be illegal!

killerandflash said:

cafcfan1990 said:

Why would Wiredu agree to join us purely to be sold on for profit? I think most buy backs have a set fee but if there’s Championship interest he’s not coming back 

Because he won't have any choice if that's what the original transfer deal says

We could then sell him on ourselves if he wanted to go elsewhere

Not sure many clauses state a player is forced to sign a deal with a club regardless if what they want…

killerandflash said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Oggy Red said:

Redrobo said:

Todds_right_hook said:

Haven't we got first call on him? He can only go somewhere if we decide not to bring him back?

I think we did have a buy back in his contract and he would suit our formation.

I believe you're right. Something written into the sale about us having 1st option if Colchester wanted to sell.

Pretty meaningless really. If there’s competition for his signature we’d still have match any offers Colchester and the player received in order to get him. 

It depends on what the contract says. If it says that if the player is sold, we have the first rights to buy back the player and will pay a fixed fee of £150k, then it would be irrelevant if Forest offered £500k

We could of course buy him for £150k and then sell him to Forest for £500k if we wanted

I assume Colchester got him from us for peanuts, so would still make a profit

I pretty confident that Colchester wouldn’t have agreed a deal where if Wiredu turns into the next big thing Charlton can buy him back for peanuts. The deal will have been along the lines of we’ll agree to sell him to you if you match our valuation and match any bids over that. A first refusal.

I’m guessing that we could buy him back at an already agreed fee but he could say no, he can’t be compelled to sign for us.

ShootersHillGuru said:

killerandflash said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Oggy Red said:

Redrobo said:

Todds_right_hook said:

Haven't we got first call on him? He can only go somewhere if we decide not to bring him back?

I think we did have a buy back in his contract and he would suit our formation.

I believe you're right. Something written into the sale about us having 1st option if Colchester wanted to sell.

Pretty meaningless really. If there’s competition for his signature we’d still have match any offers Colchester and the player received in order to get him. 

It depends on what the contract says. If it says that if the player is sold, we have the first rights to buy back the player and will pay a fixed fee of £150k, then it would be irrelevant if Forest offered £500k

We could of course buy him for £150k and then sell him to Forest for £500k if we wanted

I assume Colchester got him from us for peanuts, so would still make a profit

I pretty confident that Colchester wouldn’t have agreed a deal where if Wiredu turns into the next big thing Charlton can buy him back for peanuts. The deal will have been along the lines of we’ll agree to sell him to you if you match our valuation and match any bids over that. A first refusal.

It doesn't work like that though. Whilst you're right in that it won't necessarily be for peanuts, it will have already been agreed as part of the initial sale and if we offer whatever the price is, there's nothing Colchester can do about it.

Chelsea (not surprisingly) do it with a lot of their youngsters these days. Abraham has a buy back clause when he went to Roma. They sold Livramento to Southampton for a cut price 5m, with a 25m buy back. Southampton get a very talented young player on the cheap, with the downside of course in that in a couple of years when he's an established PL right back, Chelsea can get him back for a low price. That's the chance they take. No one forces them to buy the player and if they didn't think it was worth it, they wouldn't have agreed to Chelsea's demands. The exact same process on a much lower scale applies to Colchester.

Aneke back on loan? Apparently Bowyer, Gallen and Jacko were at the QPR game last night.

ShootersHillGuru said:

charlton_hero said:

Aneke back on loan? Apparently Bowyer, Gallen and Jacko were at the QPR game last night.

Can Chuks manage the odd 90 minutes these days or are we looking to loan a sub ?

Has played 17 times this season. 
Longest stint was 68mins (although that was their last game-they lost 4-0).
Only lasted more than 30mins on two other occasions. 
Average time on pitch 21mins.
One goal. 
I would still take him back.

mendonca said:

Bowyer fell out with a player. What a surprise. Always puts the club first does that chap.

Well, whatever. But if it was Bowyer that fell out with Wiredu, that doesn't mean the player wouldn't want to come back and play under Jacko.

Maybe  the player would relish playing under Jacko?

ShootersHillGuru said:

charlton_hero said:

Aneke back on loan? Apparently Bowyer, Gallen and Jacko were at the QPR game last night.

Can Chuks manage the odd 90 minutes these days or are we looking to loan a sub ?

Chuks scored 14 goals from the bench last year. 

Obviously players ideally want to start games, but if Chuks still has issues where a regular 90 minutes is beyond him, then he'll know this and to a degree accept those limitations.

Chuks is a real handful for League One defences; a physical presence and difficult to dispossess in the opponent's box - plus his goal threat, of course.

He's proven. If he wanted to come back, it would be a no-brainer to get him on loan.

If Stockley is injured or banned we will need a striker for 90 minutes not a part-timer

With only 3 subs allowed rather than 5, you don't want too many players who can't play the 90, as if you PLAN on bringing Chuks on at 60 minutes, that only leaves you 2 subs to cover everyone else

Athletico Charlton said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

charlton_hero said:

Aneke back on loan? Apparently Bowyer, Gallen and Jacko were at the QPR game last night.

Can Chuks manage the odd 90 minutes these days or are we looking to loan a sub ?

Has played 17 times this season. 
Longest stint was 68mins (although that was their last game-they lost 4-0).
Only lasted more than 30mins on two other occasions. 
Average time on pitch 21mins.
One goal. 
I would still take him back.

I didn’t want him gone but you do have to have reservations about those Birmingham stats when tacked onto similar stats when he was with us. Has it ever been established why a professional athlete is fit enough to play over a prolonged period but never able to regain fitness enough to play a full game ? 

It’s a difficult one, as you know for those 30/45 minutes per game that he could play for us, he could turn draws into wins. At league one level he is often unplayable. 

Problem is, being a striker short, I am not sure I would want to bring in someone who notoriously cannot do a series of 90 minutes as cover if one of our other strikers gets injured/suspended - especially as a loan slot. 

paulfox said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

I think he’s out of our loan price range anyway. 

What is our loan price range?

Chunkz?