Chuks Aneke - speculation re 2023/24 season (p60)

Might be wrong but when at Birmingham he seemed to be on the bench nearly every week. Hope he is fit soon. Just another option and we know at this level he can be decent and will cause defences a headache (if he doesn't get sent off)

I can't see his body holding up playing in the manner Garner wants his forward to do so. He got injured in a friendly against a non league team as needed to press and be more intense.

Sadly, I don't think we'll see his heights of last season. 

wmcf123 said:

cafcfan1990 said:

addick1956 said:

We could  be 10 games in and the situation could easily be the same. He misses more games than he plays and in many of those he isn't playing many minutes.  And people keep hammering players who turn up and try to do their best. 

Wrong as usual 

Statistically wrong , sure, but he has to be wrapped in cotton wool to be fit for bench cameos.  Absolute waste of money . 

His goals are certainly not a waste of money. 

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:

70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship 

I criticised Aneke's re-signing at the time for three reasons - his inability to stay fit, the fact that we were paying a fee to take him back and committing to a long term contract knowing his fitness record and in the knowledge that he simply cannot cut it above League 1 so, even if we could offload him upon promotion, we would have to take a big loss on him - he will also be 30 at the start of next season which will impact his value even more and his injury issues are unlikely to improve with age.

Garrymanilow said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:

70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship 

I criticised Aneke's re-signing at the time for three reasons - his inability to stay fit, the fact that we were paying a fee to take him back and committing to a long term contract knowing his fitness record and in the knowledge that he simply cannot cut it above League 1 so, even if we could offload him upon promotion, we would have to take a big loss on him - he will also be 30 at the start of next season which will impact his value even more and his injury issues are unlikely to improve with age.

But that twisting only works based on the role you're asking Aneke to play. If Aneke was our first choice striker then yes, I absolutely agree that it would be worth looking at Charlton minutes rather than Aneke minutes. The fact is though, he's not the main man. His role, specifically, is to act as an impact sub. It seems he's happier with that and that's what we want him for. When he's out injured we miss him as an option, but we've also planned for it and don't expect to use him as a starter. With that in mind, having a backup striker who can get you 10-15 goals a season despite his injury record is incredible. It boils down to what players are being asked to do, and there's no team in the league who wouldn't take 10 goals from a substitute, especially one who is happy to play that role, no team at all. We still need to get another option in who can fill in for extended Stockley absences and provide more competition, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear we got Chuks on a tiny fee and lower wages than we gave him when we were in the Championship.

Which other clubs have a player who takes up a good chunk of the budget to have the sole role of impact sub?

You are right there is no team that wouldn’t take 10 goals from a player from the sub bench, but over a difficult and congested 46 game season, they would also want that player to be able to play and cover for injuries, suspensions and periods of 2 games a week.

Aneke simple does not do that, and is also a barrier to signing a quality player who can because he takes up budget and is de facto 2nd choice when fit.

Garrymanilow said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Garrymanilow said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:

70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship 

I criticised Aneke's re-signing at the time for three reasons - his inability to stay fit, the fact that we were paying a fee to take him back and committing to a long term contract knowing his fitness record and in the knowledge that he simply cannot cut it above League 1 so, even if we could offload him upon promotion, we would have to take a big loss on him - he will also be 30 at the start of next season which will impact his value even more and his injury issues are unlikely to improve with age.

But that twisting only works based on the role you're asking Aneke to play. If Aneke was our first choice striker then yes, I absolutely agree that it would be worth looking at Charlton minutes rather than Aneke minutes. The fact is though, he's not the main man. His role, specifically, is to act as an impact sub. It seems he's happier with that and that's what we want him for. When he's out injured we miss him as an option, but we've also planned for it and don't expect to use him as a starter. With that in mind, having a backup striker who can get you 10-15 goals a season despite his injury record is incredible. It boils down to what players are being asked to do, and there's no team in the league who wouldn't take 10 goals from a substitute, especially one who is happy to play that role, no team at all. We still need to get another option in who can fill in for extended Stockley absences and provide more competition, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear we got Chuks on a tiny fee and lower wages than we gave him when we were in the Championship.

Which other clubs have a player who takes up a good chunk of the budget to have the sole role of impact sub?

You are right there is no team that wouldn’t take 10 goals from a player from the sub bench, but over a difficult and congested 46 game season, they would also want that player to be able to play and cover for injuries, suspensions and periods of 2 games a week.

Aneke simple does not do that, and is also a barrier to signing a quality player who can because he takes up budget and is de facto 2nd choice when fit.

What chunk of the budget does he take up? Does anyone actually know? I don't think any other clubs have a player like him because he's unique in his ability to score an incredible number of goals in the minutes he plays at this level. There are plenty of teams in this league who would kill for a striker who would get them 10 goals in a season full stop, let alone as a backup. The last time Chuks played a full L1 season for us (20/21. 38 appearances 11+27), he scored 15 league goals. Last season if we're less generous and say he'd got 10 goals across a whole season he would have been:

Third top scorer for Wigan

Third top scorer for Rotherham

Third top scorer for MK Dons

Second top scorer for Sheff Wed

Second top scorer for Sunderland

Third top scorer for Wycombe

And that's only giving him 10 goals. He got 15 in a season where he started just 11 times and mostly appeared as a sub. That's just the top 6 as well. He would have been top scorer for plenty of clubs with 15 goals last season all while mostly sat down. What is true is that he shouldn't be 2nd choice. He should be first choice sub, but there should be a player competing with Stockley to be number 1 striker, no argument there. It's unusual but there's nothing wrong with it. Every team playing one up front should have three strikers to choose from, knowing that one of those strikers prefers to be an impact sub and guarantees goals is a massive positive, not a negative. I think a lot of the negativity towards having Chuks is based on principle rather than reality. There's some blockage people get when they think about a player who doesn't start games even though the way he can be used is hugely effective for scoring goals and winning games. Either way I think we all agree that we need a third striker

To be honest I’m not sure how much of the budget he takes up, but in my head would assume it’s a relatively large amount as he has come down from the championship. 

Covered_End_Lad said:

Chunes said:

"Where are the goals going to come from?"

Well, we've got a sub who can score 15 just from the bench

"Get rid of him"

1956 thinks he is stealing a living, so he has got to go. Because we all know you cannot affect a game if you don't play 90 mins for every single one of them.

but whilst we only have two senior strikers you can't afford for one of them to only be able to play once in a blue moon. 

LargeAddick said:

Covered_End_Lad said:

Chunes said:

"Where are the goals going to come from?"

Well, we've got a sub who can score 15 just from the bench

"Get rid of him"

1956 thinks he is stealing a living, so he has got to go. Because we all know you cannot affect a game if you don't play 90 mins for every single one of them.

but whilst we only have two senior strikers you can't afford for one of them to only be able to play once in a blue moon. 

So we need more cover, rather than ditching one of the best finishers in the league. 

I have a feeling this thread is going to run and run this season - in fact I predict it will barely ever make it off the first page or two.

Either he wont be playing - cue the "waste of money" brigade - or else he will score - cue the "best thing since sliced bread" brigade. There's probably not going to be much in between.

I'm pretty sure that most of us are agreed that he's a great player to have in this division when he's fit and we all want him to do well for us. The big "BUT" is his fitness record and whether he can actually contribute enough - and regularly enough - to the team. That's the frustrating thing.

Time will tell, of course, but it's not the greatest start to a season.

Chunes said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:

70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship 

When you posted this last time it was pointed out that he wasn't playing as a striker for a portion of those games. His goalscoring record since converting to one is outstanding. 

The previous discussion is only on page 25 so probably doesn't need to be done again!

So if he wasn't playing as an out and out striker then, by definition, he has to be a provider because he has never been a defender or a defensive midfielder as far as I'm aware? I can also only see that he has ever provided 3 assists in League 1 for us. If those stats are correct then his record for CAFC for League 1 goals and assists totals 22 - so he scores or assists once in every 286 minutes or less than once every three games we have played in League 1. Which is why I do not also understand this "impact sub" defence. Even saying that his average wage wasn't £5k per week in the Championship but say £4K per week and he only cost us £150,000 and not the reported £300,000 from Birmingham then they still work out at £20,000 each. And those stats do not even take into account his disastrous first season with us in the Championship when his 1 goal and 2 assists would have cost us in the region of £70,000 each (at just £4k per week).

In the previous thread (and I should, admittedly, have picked this up at the time) you also said that "it has been established that his injury record isn't that bad". He has actually made, in League football, 166 starts and 124 sub appearances in 11 years i.e. an average of 15 starts and 11 sub appearances per season. Which is bad enough because it means that he misses half a season on average but if we take the last three seasons then it amounts to a total of 18 starts and 67 sub appearances - which equals an average of 6 starts and 22 sub appearances per season. And those stats do not even include this season. These injury issues have been going on for years. This is from an article in an interview published on 19th May 2019 in his final season at MK Dons ironically a matter of weeks before he signed for us:

The striker, signed back in July 2016, endured tough times during his first two campaigns at Stadium MK - sidelined due to injuries in his first before suffering relegation in 2017/18.

“On a personal level, I’ve had problems with injuries and this has been my first injury-free season for a very long time, which is pleasing. I’ve played lots of football and scored lots of goals and chipped in.”

Then last season again I questioned, at the time, why the hell Bowyer wanted Aneke at Birmingham given his scoring and fitness level and he managed just 2 goals and no assists in half a season. It turned out to be a panic, but fee free, acquisition by Birmingham given the state of that club but Bowyer couldn't wait to get rid of him in January - and we were only to happy to pay a fee and give him a three and a half year contract too. It's not just the taking him back and the gamble in doing so that is just the issue, it is the fact that he is taking a space and will be doing so 'til he is 32 that I didn't get at the time we re-signed him and still don't now.

The fact that he might prevent us from signing another striker for another 3 seasons is as much the issue as it is the cost. Saying that he will score 15 goals from the bench is also ridiculous because he can't be on the bench if he is sitting in the stands. And maintaining that had he been playing for us for the whole season he would have scored "X" is equally ill founded. Because he might well have been injured.

Injuries occur at whatever level you play at. Even park football if you are susceptible to them. And unfortunately he is more susceptible to them than most. I hope he proves me wrong. For his and our sakes. He's a fantastic asset if fit. But that really is the big issue. His fitness and ability to stay fit.

Garrymanilow said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Garrymanilow said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Garrymanilow said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:

70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship 

I criticised Aneke's re-signing at the time for three reasons - his inability to stay fit, the fact that we were paying a fee to take him back and committing to a long term contract knowing his fitness record and in the knowledge that he simply cannot cut it above League 1 so, even if we could offload him upon promotion, we would have to take a big loss on him - he will also be 30 at the start of next season which will impact his value even more and his injury issues are unlikely to improve with age.

But that twisting only works based on the role you're asking Aneke to play. If Aneke was our first choice striker then yes, I absolutely agree that it would be worth looking at Charlton minutes rather than Aneke minutes. The fact is though, he's not the main man. His role, specifically, is to act as an impact sub. It seems he's happier with that and that's what we want him for. When he's out injured we miss him as an option, but we've also planned for it and don't expect to use him as a starter. With that in mind, having a backup striker who can get you 10-15 goals a season despite his injury record is incredible. It boils down to what players are being asked to do, and there's no team in the league who wouldn't take 10 goals from a substitute, especially one who is happy to play that role, no team at all. We still need to get another option in who can fill in for extended Stockley absences and provide more competition, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear we got Chuks on a tiny fee and lower wages than we gave him when we were in the Championship.

Which other clubs have a player who takes up a good chunk of the budget to have the sole role of impact sub?

You are right there is no team that wouldn’t take 10 goals from a player from the sub bench, but over a difficult and congested 46 game season, they would also want that player to be able to play and cover for injuries, suspensions and periods of 2 games a week.

Aneke simple does not do that, and is also a barrier to signing a quality player who can because he takes up budget and is de facto 2nd choice when fit.

What chunk of the budget does he take up? Does anyone actually know? I don't think any other clubs have a player like him because he's unique in his ability to score an incredible number of goals in the minutes he plays at this level. There are plenty of teams in this league who would kill for a striker who would get them 10 goals in a season full stop, let alone as a backup. The last time Chuks played a full L1 season for us (20/21. 38 appearances 11+27), he scored 15 league goals. Last season if we're less generous and say he'd got 10 goals across a whole season he would have been:

Third top scorer for Wigan

Third top scorer for Rotherham

Third top scorer for MK Dons

Second top scorer for Sheff Wed

Second top scorer for Sunderland

Third top scorer for Wycombe

And that's only giving him 10 goals. He got 15 in a season where he started just 11 times and mostly appeared as a sub. That's just the top 6 as well. He would have been top scorer for plenty of clubs with 15 goals last season all while mostly sat down. What is true is that he shouldn't be 2nd choice. He should be first choice sub, but there should be a player competing with Stockley to be number 1 striker, no argument there. It's unusual but there's nothing wrong with it. Every team playing one up front should have three strikers to choose from, knowing that one of those strikers prefers to be an impact sub and guarantees goals is a massive positive, not a negative. I think a lot of the negativity towards having Chuks is based on principle rather than reality. There's some blockage people get when they think about a player who doesn't start games even though the way he can be used is hugely effective for scoring goals and winning games. Either way I think we all agree that we need a third striker

To be honest I’m not sure how much of the budget he takes up, but in my head would assume it’s a relatively large amount as he has come down from the championship. 

Again, it’s not about the amount of goals he scores when he comes on. I’m not doubting that or his ability. It’s about how the team and results are affected in the games or minutes he can’t play, or how he can’t be utilised when our main striker needs to be rested or is suspended/injured.

Im all for going against the status quo, but as you say I can’t think of another team who has a player doing a similar role - and for me there’s something in that. And so far for all the goals chucks has scored for us, we have been relegated and not promoted with him in the squad.

Hopefully we can get a loan striker in who him and his team are willing to essentially be 3rd choice, who might get very limited game time and options off the bench, but if needed to play a chunk of games needs to be as good and consistent as a 2nd choice striker.

Of course it is. It absolutely is. Counting games where we won or drew by the odd goal, Chuks won us 16 points. Add the fact his two assists won us an extra 4 points and that's 20 points we wouldn't have had without him. More than a quarter of our total points that season. We wouldn't have been near it without our top scorer, it's just a shame the team around him was total jank. The team shouldn't be affected massively by him not playing if they're actually any good, they just weren't that season and relied on him. He's a brilliant option to have. A lot of what you've said is very hand-wavy. His budget cost is in your head, the fact we got relegated from the Championship and no-one else has a Chuks (there isn't another Chuks) is a reason to not have him. The fact is he's goals for a team that needs goals. The goal numbers speak for themselves. Now we need to get a third striker in.

How many games and points have we lost because he’s been unable to play large stretches of games, and we don’t have the required depth to replace him during those periods? Or do you think it’s a good thing we had to play Burstow and Leko up front because the moment Chuks was called upon to fill in 90 minutes games he broke down.

Go on then which third striker do you think will be happy to come here, perhaps not even sit on the bench because Chuks will if fit, but then be good enough to consistently get us points if needed to play a stretch of games.

How do you think that fits within our budget as well?

FishCostaFortune said:

Garrymanilow said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Garrymanilow said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Garrymanilow said:

Addick Addict said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

FishCostaFortune said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Fuck me we're only 2 games into the league season and we have 4 points, not like we've really missed him. Even if he was fit, he probably wouldn't be starting.

As Garner says no point risking him. He can get 15 minutes as sub v Plymouth, then probably 30 minutes v Cambridge. 

*Caveat this is not me denying how much quality Chuks has as a player, which for some reason people seem to think you are saying if you don’t think he is good for the overall team. 

The whole point is not about how well we are doing now, after 2 games.

It’s that we have a player, who had his minutes managed more than everyone else over pre season because of his injury history, not able to make it through it without picking up an injury that has kept him out for at least 4 weeks.

Of course there’s a chance it won’t happen again this season. However with Chuks there’s a very big chance that it will, and we could be left short of options up front - like we were last season. 

I have no idea what we are spending on Chuks budget wise. But over a tough 46 game season, I’d much rather we used that money on someone who can consistently play and is fit and available in times when they are needed - which Chuks has shown he is not.

I don't disagree with what you've said and we all know he's liable to break down at any time, but there's also a counter argument that having Chuks available even for 30 games at this level is better than another striker for all 46. 

At this level he's played 1966 minutes for us and scored 19 goals. A goal every 103 minutes.

Surely the correct statistics are based not on how many goals per minute he's scored when playing but how many goals per minute he's scored during the time he's been at the Club. I won't even take into account his horrendous record above this level (one goal for us in the Championship and two for Birmingham) but these are the relevant stats:

70 League 1 games played by CAFC
19 goals
One goal from Aneke every 332 minutes we have played
Not on pitch for 229 minutes out of every 332 minutes so we have had to replace him with someone else playing for more than two out of every three minutes he's been at the Club in League 1
Cost of each goal scored by Aneke in League 1 estimated at approximately £40K (that's using £5K per week average salary plus £300,000 transfer fee) - happy to be corrected on these figures but he was signed originally when we were in the Championship 

I criticised Aneke's re-signing at the time for three reasons - his inability to stay fit, the fact that we were paying a fee to take him back and committing to a long term contract knowing his fitness record and in the knowledge that he simply cannot cut it above League 1 so, even if we could offload him upon promotion, we would have to take a big loss on him - he will also be 30 at the start of next season which will impact his value even more and his injury issues are unlikely to improve with age.

But that twisting only works based on the role you're asking Aneke to play. If Aneke was our first choice striker then yes, I absolutely agree that it would be worth looking at Charlton minutes rather than Aneke minutes. The fact is though, he's not the main man. His role, specifically, is to act as an impact sub. It seems he's happier with that and that's what we want him for. When he's out injured we miss him as an option, but we've also planned for it and don't expect to use him as a starter. With that in mind, having a backup striker who can get you 10-15 goals a season despite his injury record is incredible. It boils down to what players are being asked to do, and there's no team in the league who wouldn't take 10 goals from a substitute, especially one who is happy to play that role, no team at all. We still need to get another option in who can fill in for extended Stockley absences and provide more competition, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear we got Chuks on a tiny fee and lower wages than we gave him when we were in the Championship.

Which other clubs have a player who takes up a good chunk of the budget to have the sole role of impact sub?

You are right there is no team that wouldn’t take 10 goals from a player from the sub bench, but over a difficult and congested 46 game season, they would also want that player to be able to play and cover for injuries, suspensions and periods of 2 games a week.

Aneke simple does not do that, and is also a barrier to signing a quality player who can because he takes up budget and is de facto 2nd choice when fit.

What chunk of the budget does he take up? Does anyone actually know? I don't think any other clubs have a player like him because he's unique in his ability to score an incredible number of goals in the minutes he plays at this level. There are plenty of teams in this league who would kill for a striker who would get them 10 goals in a season full stop, let alone as a backup. The last time Chuks played a full L1 season for us (20/21. 38 appearances 11+27), he scored 15 league goals. Last season if we're less generous and say he'd got 10 goals across a whole season he would have been:

Third top scorer for Wigan

Third top scorer for Rotherham

Third top scorer for MK Dons

Second top scorer for Sheff Wed

Second top scorer for Sunderland

Third top scorer for Wycombe

And that's only giving him 10 goals. He got 15 in a season where he started just 11 times and mostly appeared as a sub. That's just the top 6 as well. He would have been top scorer for plenty of clubs with 15 goals last season all while mostly sat down. What is true is that he shouldn't be 2nd choice. He should be first choice sub, but there should be a player competing with Stockley to be number 1 striker, no argument there. It's unusual but there's nothing wrong with it. Every team playing one up front should have three strikers to choose from, knowing that one of those strikers prefers to be an impact sub and guarantees goals is a massive positive, not a negative. I think a lot of the negativity towards having Chuks is based on principle rather than reality. There's some blockage people get when they think about a player who doesn't start games even though the way he can be used is hugely effective for scoring goals and winning games. Either way I think we all agree that we need a third striker

To be honest I’m not sure how much of the budget he takes up, but in my head would assume it’s a relatively large amount as he has come down from the championship. 

Again, it’s not about the amount of goals he scores when he comes on. I’m not doubting that or his ability. It’s about how the team and results are affected in the games or minutes he can’t play, or how he can’t be utilised when our main striker needs to be rested or is suspended/injured.

Im all for going against the status quo, but as you say I can’t think of another team who has a player doing a similar role - and for me there’s something in that. And so far for all the goals chucks has scored for us, we have been relegated and not promoted with him in the squad.

Hopefully we can get a loan striker in who him and his team are willing to essentially be 3rd choice, who might get very limited game time and options off the bench, but if needed to play a chunk of games needs to be as good and consistent as a 2nd choice striker.

Of course it is. It absolutely is. Counting games where we won or drew by the odd goal, Chuks won us 16 points. Add the fact his two assists won us an extra 4 points and that's 20 points we wouldn't have had without him. More than a quarter of our total points that season. We wouldn't have been near it without our top scorer, it's just a shame the team around him was total jank. The team shouldn't be affected massively by him not playing if they're actually any good, they just weren't that season and relied on him. He's a brilliant option to have. A lot of what you've said is very hand-wavy. His budget cost is in your head, the fact we got relegated from the Championship and no-one else has a Chuks (there isn't another Chuks) is a reason to not have him. The fact is he's goals for a team that needs goals. The goal numbers speak for themselves. Now we need to get a third striker in.

How many games and points have we lost because he’s been unable to play large stretches of games, and we don’t have the required depth to replace him during those periods? Or do you think it’s a good thing we had to play Burstow and Leko up front because the moment Chuks was called upon to fill in 90 minutes games he broke down.

Go on then which third striker do you think will be happy to come here, perhaps not even sit on the bench because Chuks will if fit, but then be good enough to consistently get us points if needed to play a stretch of games.

How do you think that fits within our budget as well?

If we can’t sign an out and out striker maybe someone that can play anywhere across the front line?