Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)
Comments
-
Yeah but it all comes down to fitnessAFKABartram said:I’m not really focused on the financials as none of us will know the details.
But from a team / squad perspective, if it’s a permanent deal then is Chuks a player that will improve our squad with an eye to delivering a promotion season next year?Do people think the answer to that is yes?
A fully fit Aneke would be this leagues top scorer, no doubt. But I would put money on him not playing more than 50% of total minutes next season.1 -
I don't think you can begrudge a player for wanting to make a step up in standard for presumably more moneyBelv said:
No and there's another issue, if we're signing strikers that don't want to play for Charlton we should have tried harder for Taylor.Pelling1993 said:
It's not ideal but he didn't want to sign an extension at the time did he?Belv said:£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.
What a fantastic piece of business.16 -
Ridiculous business from us. Leaves on a free then bought back for 300k a few months later.
Not thrilled at this, fella hasn't got x1 90 minute game a month in him.7 -
Why take a punt on someone when we know what Aneke can do?hudson-son-son said:I mean I love Chuks as a player he's great entertainment value, but it doesn't really speak to some great direction that we're losing a player on a free, signing him back for a fee in terms of holding onto players, and the depths of our scouting department...9 -
No issues with Chucks coming back at all. Proper handful at this level.9
-
Having said that, i still think we need another all round striker, need to get Burstow out on loan, and let Dvaison go1
-
like American football .. play Inniss for a while to soften up the attackers, than bring on Chuks for 20 mins in the hope of getting a winner or match saver .. old fashioned me, I like players who can be relied on to play the full 90, except of course unless they get an injury .. perhaps football is moving that way with the likely reintroduction of 5 substitutes .. like US sports we will enter a new phase of hyper tactical player changes .. I think that will ruin the game as we (at least I) like it to be played ..
anyway, the return of Chuks ? .. smacks of panic, so it's a no from me though he had his good moments in the past0 -
One of the black box parameters must include "has played for Charlton".
In truth though I was gutted when Chuks left. His goals papered over a lot of cracks last season and we're seeing the impact of not adequately replacing him this season.
Another player with a duff fitness record but makes such a difference in the time he is on the pitch. I'd gladly have him back.3 -
To keep Stockley company in the physio room maybe?dajavouslagan said:Why sign an injury prone striker, another one we can’t rely on! I despair!
Lets hope we have got comfortable on the injury issues and its not such an issue as previously suggested.1 -
Birmingham signed Chuks at the start the window, then signed Troy Deeney right at the end, who clearly was always going to be ahead of Chuks in the pecking orderAddick Addict said:
Because Birmingham offered him more money than our budget would allow. He still only plays as a sub - one Championship start and 17 sub appearances - and that's for a team that hasn't managed a goal a game and failed to score in 11 of their 24 matches. Which makes one wonder why Bowyer signed him in the first place?charlton_hero said:Good to see the black box is working!
I'd welcome Chuks back, but why didn't we try harder to keep him in the summer.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Left it late in sorting his contract last season, probably could have tied him down from January before any other interest came calling, was always clear his importance to us, but oh well.
He's on his way back, happy with that, we've now finally replaced the aneke sized hole with....aneke!
Loan out Davison maybe, or let him fill the role he should have had all along, fourth choice.0 -
The legend returns.
not a great signing but think he is a decent option we do need in the forward position. Would prefer someone more consistent though.0 -
Having an option like Chuks on the bench to come on against tiring defenders will be the difference between losing and drawing or drawing and winning in a number of instances. Happy its a permanent deal.
We all know the drawbacks of chuks but lets not forget last season he had the best minute per goal ratio in the whole of the football league.
Jayden to play the first 60 mins with Chuks the last 30 every game will do me.15 -
Told me son (11) expecting him to be all excited but got “oh. But he’s never fit, is he?”22
-
Last season we could make 5 subs, so players who can't play 90 was less of a problem than now, when we can only make 3 subs2
-
People seem to have forgotten Chuks was top scorer for us last season. 15 goals from 11 starts and 27 sub appearances. That means he played some of 38 games which is not bad given his fitness and injury record.8
-
Let’s not turn this into a ‘would ya’ ? !!!!!!MuttleyCAFC said:Has the physicality to make it harder for defenders. How fit is he?9 -
This is absolute madness on so many levels2
-
So let me get this right. We are paying a fee for someone who didn’t want to be here and left for free. Someone who, despite his obvious talents, manages about 30 minutes a game now and then when he’s fit. Someone who couldn’t get a game in a struggling championship side managed by someone who rated him. I honestly give up. What is our strategy? Why are we obsessed by signing crocks? I am a Chuks fan btw so just looking at this objectively. A pay as you play deal I could just about understand but this is a sticking plaster on a broken leg.6
- Sponsored links:
-
Just why did we let him go in the summer for nought and buy him back for 300k.
madness really!! But I would welcome him back.0 -
How? Aneke wanted to test himself in the league above and was out of contract. Different story if we released him and then bought him back, but that's not the case.J BLOCK said:Ridiculous business from us. Leaves on a free then bought back for 300k a few months later.
Not thrilled at this, fella hasn't got x1 90 minute game a month in him.6 -
I’m a bit ‘meh’ about this, but happy if he proves me wrong1
-
I've been out this morning and just seen this and nothing else.Belv said:£300k for a player that left for nothing only 5 months ago.
What a fantastic piece of business.
I suspect I'm going to get whoosed here but are we really paying £300k for someone who left on a free transfer 7 months ago?
1 -
Ether not long enough or too long, someone will moan either way.golfaddick said:length of contract ?7 -
To be fair, Chuks didnt really give us a choice.Bilko said:Just why did we let him go in the summer for nought and buy him back for 300k.
madness really!! But I would welcome him back.
He wanted to play in the Championship again, just seems that Birmingham need money (He probably wants to play football), and we're the only interested party2 -
The amount of people saying "But we released him on a free in the summer!"
No we didnt. We offered him a deal, a club in a higher division offered him a bigger deal which he accepted. If we had our way he would never have left.50 -
As multiple people have said WE didnt let him go he chose to leave and try a move up to a higher league on more money it was a no brainer reallyBilko said:Just why did we let him go in the summer for nought and buy him back for 300k.
madness really!! But I would welcome him back.2 -
Happy with this as gives us something we don’t have, not only physical presence but he can carry the ball holding players off and bring others into play and should help create more chances. He at times can take up 2 defenders leaving space.
Would offload Davison if Stockley not out for to long and let Mason come on as sub to give minutes and stake a claim for next season.
2 -
Good news.
6 months late if we had play off ambitions.1
This discussion has been closed.
