Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Jake Forster Caskey - waiting to hear if club will exercise 1 year option (p11)
Comments
-
He was Captain in our first pre-season friendly if I remember rightlyRedhenry said:
He may well be ready to play, don't forget he was out for a long time. I honestly don't think Garner fancied him at first, this could be his time! Time will tell i guessalburyaddick said:
Redhenry - I always value your posts highly, but you have consistently said this and its the one area where I cannot understand your position. His pedigree, experience, performance and talent surely make him good enough in the 3rd division in this team !Redhenry said:If he's good enough, he will play!0 -
He didn't fancy Dobson at first either. Remember the first ever Charlton 11 Garner picked he made JFC captain...Redhenry said:
He may well be ready to play, don't forget he was out for a long time. I honestly don't think Garner fancied him at first, this could be his time! Time will tell i guessalburyaddick said:
Redhenry - I always value your posts highly, but you have consistently said this and its the one area where I cannot understand your position. His pedigree, experience, performance and talent surely make him good enough in the 3rd division in this team !Redhenry said:If he's good enough, he will play!
I would buy he doesn't fancy him if he had been on, and come off, the bench once or twice. To have a very thin squad and not use a player at all, is more than not fancying him.
Him playing in the Cup games scuppers the he is shagging his Mrs type rumours.
There isn't a lot else left really.5 -
I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.0
-
JFC isn't going to break into the team ahead of Fraser and Dobson. Garner quite likes Morgan, and gets a place on the bench. Then Conor is a Garner signing, he was one of the players he put his foot down to sign, so he will be in front of JFC in the pecking order.
Martin Sandgaard is the one that triggered the new contract for JFC.
JFC might get a chance now we have an injury to the midfield.1 -
JFC is our third best midfielder after Dobson and Fraser…should be on the bench, can read a game, open up a defence, great at set pieces, there is no reason apart from the money side that he isn’t playing. Terrible treatment of a player who has had some terrible injuries and fought to come back, and has always given 100% to the club15
-
Henry playing for the U21s today strongly suggests a possible JFC sighting on Saturday.2
-
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.0 -
"This season" explained Garner, "We are concentrating on the 3 cup competitions we are still in, so I need to keep Jake fresh for these key games by resting him from the league matches."10
-
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.4 -
Because Martin's little black box told him they could sell for a profit but nobody was interested. MS got egg on his face when loan deal fell through too and to save face JFC gets the blame. He will be gone in January because the Sandgaards don't want him at the club.SheedyCAFC said:The Sandgaards really are an inept bunch, why offer Jake the contract in the first place if they didn’t want to pay him the wages that they offered him for reaching X amount of league games.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
So, not a fact then!Cafc43v3r said:
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.0 -
time will tell I guess0
-
From the International Fans Forum
TS said there is an increase in Jake Forster-Caskey’s contract if he plays but that winning games and getting points is the priority, so the potential increase does not impact selection. He said Ben Garner has no instruction from him on whether or not to play Jake PV, AH Forster-Caskey. He said the fact Forster-Caskey hasn’t been playing has nothing to do with the clause in the contract but instead is based on the manager selecting a team that he feels is best for each specific game. It was referenced that Ben Garner had said the same to the South London Press.
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/international-fans-forum-january-transfer-window-valley-superstore-and-more
0 -
In a way this is quite depressing because it points to a stubbornness on the part of Garner to play him despite his obvious quality. He keeps bigging up MacGrandles who isn't at the same level as JFC, presumably because he wanted to bring him in. In those games at home against FGR, Cambridge and Oxford, bringing on JFC would have changed at least one of those draws into wins.clive said:From the International Fans Forum
TS said there is an increase in Jake Forster-Caskey’s contract if he plays but that winning games and getting points is the priority, so the potential increase does not impact selection. He said Ben Garner has no instruction from him on whether or not to play Jake PV, AH Forster-Caskey. He said the fact Forster-Caskey hasn’t been playing has nothing to do with the clause in the contract but instead is based on the manager selecting a team that he feels is best for each specific game. It was referenced that Ben Garner had said the same to the South London Press.
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/international-fans-forum-january-transfer-window-valley-superstore-and-more2 -
Garner probably decided to use players who want to be at the club.
I think JFC made up his mind to move on and that is why he has not figured in the League and it has come back to bite BG on the arse.
1 -
My view - Jakes not going to play the wide roles in midfield, and he’s not going to replace Dobson or Fraser, so there’s no starting role for him unless we change the formation.Should he be on the bench - maybe, depends on the contract clause. If I’m Garner, and I know we’re on a tight budget, I’m not sticking him on the bench if it means I can’t spend the money elsewhere in January. I’m not giving Jake a pay rise to be a bench player. Now if Dobson or Fraser get injured.that might change.That sort of makes sense of the answers we’ve heard - Garner hasn’t been told he can’t play him, but there is a potential budget implication if he does. If he wants to keep as much money available as he can for a forward and/or a left back, why blow money on a back up midfielder.10
-
Lack of fitness. Ease him back in cup competitions and play him in league games after 15 odd games into the season is logical.Cafc43v3r said:
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.
manager doesn't rate him is logical
player being disruptive on the training pitch is logical.
there are lots of logical reasons why he hasn't been involved. I'm not saying that any of the above are true, just pointing out that there are other logical factors.
For the record, I believe the contract clause story0 -
I think this is most logical explanation of what appears to be a strange situation.SomervilleAddick said:My view - Jakes not going to play the wide roles in midfield, and he’s not going to replace Dobson or Fraser, so there’s no starting role for him unless we change the formation.Should he be on the bench - maybe, depends on the contract clause. If I’m Garner, and I know we’re on a tight budget, I’m not sticking him on the bench if it means I can’t spend the money elsewhere in January. I’m not giving Jake a pay rise to be a bench player. Now if Dobson or Fraser get injured.that might change.That sort of makes sense of the answers we’ve heard - Garner hasn’t been told he can’t play him, but there is a potential budget implication if he does. If he wants to keep as much money available as he can for a forward and/or a left back, why blow money on a back up midfielder.
1 -
Is fitness seriously an issue? JFC played 75 mins against QPR, then 90 against Walsall. Any lack of fitness comes from not playing in league matches, even for 10/15 mins. The handling of JFC negatively affects his ability to become match fit so not sure it's a logical explanation.Todds_right_hook said:
Lack of fitness. Ease him back in cup competitions and play him in league games after 15 odd games into the season is logical.Cafc43v3r said:
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.
manager doesn't rate him is logical
player being disruptive on the training pitch is logical.
there are lots of logical reasons why he hasn't been involved. I'm not saying that any of the above are true, just pointing out that there are other logical factors.
For the record, I believe the contract clause story1 -
75 mins against qpr, 90 against Walsall doesn't mean he is ready for constant league 1 football, sometimes 3 games in a weekcafcfan1990 said:
Is fitness seriously an issue? JFC played 75 mins against QPR, then 90 against Walsall. Any lack of fitness comes from not playing in league matches, even for 10/15 mins. The handling of JFC negatively affects his ability to become match fit so not sure it's a logical explanation.Todds_right_hook said:
Lack of fitness. Ease him back in cup competitions and play him in league games after 15 odd games into the season is logical.Cafc43v3r said:
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.
manager doesn't rate him is logical
player being disruptive on the training pitch is logical.
there are lots of logical reasons why he hasn't been involved. I'm not saying that any of the above are true, just pointing out that there are other logical factors.
For the record, I believe the contract clause story0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Is that how you see things, or an actual fact of what’s going to happen in terms of gone in January, or just two and two because the Wimbledon loan broke down?thetomahawkkid said:
Because Martin's little black box told him they could sell for a profit but nobody was interested. MS got egg on his face when loan deal fell through too and to save face JFC gets the blame. He will be gone in January because the Sandgaards don't want him at the club.SheedyCAFC said:The Sandgaards really are an inept bunch, why offer Jake the contract in the first place if they didn’t want to pay him the wages that they offered him for reaching X amount of league games.0 -
On the bench today0
-
I’m really pleased Jakes on the bench today, hope he comes on and shows us what we’ve been missing.0
-
If match fitness was THE issue why hasn't he had minutes for the u21s?Todds_right_hook said:
75 mins against qpr, 90 against Walsall doesn't mean he is ready for constant league 1 football, sometimes 3 games in a weekcafcfan1990 said:
Is fitness seriously an issue? JFC played 75 mins against QPR, then 90 against Walsall. Any lack of fitness comes from not playing in league matches, even for 10/15 mins. The handling of JFC negatively affects his ability to become match fit so not sure it's a logical explanation.Todds_right_hook said:
Lack of fitness. Ease him back in cup competitions and play him in league games after 15 odd games into the season is logical.Cafc43v3r said:
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.
manager doesn't rate him is logical
player being disruptive on the training pitch is logical.
there are lots of logical reasons why he hasn't been involved. I'm not saying that any of the above are true, just pointing out that there are other logical factors.
For the record, I believe the contract clause story
It would actually have made sense to have him on the bench and let McGrandles get minutes in the u21s.
If he was a bad influence in the dressing room he wouldn't play in the cups.
We know the contract clause exists. The question is how much has it influenced his nonselection. I suspect the answer is a lot and the closer to January we get the less of an issue it becomes. I think the answer will be obvious once he makes that single appearance.2 -
What have we been missing? Does he have something we don’t get from Dobson and Fraser?Mendonca In Asdas said:I’m really pleased Jakes on the bench today, hope he comes on and shows us what we’ve been missing.2 -
No but we played the first 3 months of the season with 3 center mids...Scoham said:
What have we been missing? Does he have something we don’t get from Dobson and Fraser?Mendonca In Asdas said:I’m really pleased Jakes on the bench today, hope he comes on and shows us what we’ve been missing.
He certainly offers more than McGrandles has shown and is much more consistent than Morgan. Its not an 11 player game any more.1 -
Backup!Scoham said:
What have we been missing? Does he have something we don’t get from Dobson and Fraser?Mendonca In Asdas said:I’m really pleased Jakes on the bench today, hope he comes on and shows us what we’ve been missing.0 -
Of course not, but the answer isn’t playing the occasional cup game. No club brings their players back to match fitness by starting them in the odd cup game and not even having them on the bench for league gamesTodds_right_hook said:
75 mins against qpr, 90 against Walsall doesn't mean he is ready for constant league 1 football, sometimes 3 games in a weekcafcfan1990 said:
Is fitness seriously an issue? JFC played 75 mins against QPR, then 90 against Walsall. Any lack of fitness comes from not playing in league matches, even for 10/15 mins. The handling of JFC negatively affects his ability to become match fit so not sure it's a logical explanation.Todds_right_hook said:
Lack of fitness. Ease him back in cup competitions and play him in league games after 15 odd games into the season is logical.Cafc43v3r said:
It's been mentioned from multiple sources on here including a long standing sponsor, the "leak account" and Jakes dad.Redhenry said:
doesn't mean it is a fact!ct_addick said:I watched the FA Cup game over here in USA on ESPN and they mentioned that JFCs contract will trigger a pay raise after a certain number of league appearances. They said that is a reason for his lack of playing time in the league games. If that’s the case it’s embarrassing for the club that this story is circulating. They need to say something to put this to bed or play him as he is better than Morgan.
There is no other logical explanation why JFC has featured in all of our cup games and ZERO minutes in the league.
Is there? If so I would love to hear it?
BTW he is "involved" on Saturday but that's another story.
manager doesn't rate him is logical
player being disruptive on the training pitch is logical.
there are lots of logical reasons why he hasn't been involved. I'm not saying that any of the above are true, just pointing out that there are other logical factors.
For the record, I believe the contract clause story0 -
If Dobson plays as badly as he did today, then yesScoham said:
What have we been missing? Does he have something we don’t get from Dobson and Fraser?Mendonca In Asdas said:I’m really pleased Jakes on the bench today, hope he comes on and shows us what we’ve been missing.1 -
And both Dobson and Fraser looked a bit tired today1
