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

cabbles said:

Cafc43v3r said:

cabbles said:

CAFCOlly said:

Get him fit and use him exclusively for 15 minutes at the end of games where we’re needing a goal. Don’t bother starting him or even giving him 45 minutes.

It’s obviously not ideal but we’ve got him for another few years - we’re going to have to accommodate him whether we like it or not. 

15 minutes from Chuks is more dangerous than a full 90 minutes from Stockley.

Stockley is a low bar.  I’d argue having him for 15 minutes a game isn’t dangerous enough to get us out this league and not sustainable.  You just never know when he’ll break down again.  

I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but should he even train.  Different circumstances, but Ledley King didn’t train for spurs for a period of his career.  I’ve got no idea if this would be applicable to Aneke.

On the whole though, the best option would be to try and ship him on somehow, even if that means taking a hit financially 

This is the pardox though.  If we were in the position to pay Aneke off, we wouldn't need to pay him off.

In addition to Chuks we have got 5 players, who are under contract for next season, who are unselectable because they are either simply not good enough or not suited to the way we play, or mix of both.

You could probably get away with 2 or 3, like we did in 2019, but 6 is far, far too many.  That doesn't include the other couple that are out of contract in the summer.

Yes, combined with Kirk, Mansfield, Stockley and others, we’ve got a challenge in how that impacts the playing squad next year.

For me, I think the question is, do we want either Stockley or Aneke here at the start of next season?  In my opinion, no.  Stockley has all the mobility and threat of someone that’s taken a hit of spice before a game, and Aneke is knackered.

it might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. I think most people are willing to see the back of Stockley, but there are a number of people who still cling onto this impact from the bench role Aneke has.  Since he returned in the Exeter game I think he got 3 in 12, I’m sure there were a couple of assists in there as well.  If he’s as good an impact player as everyone keeps making out, that’s not actually a great return imo.  

I think you also have to factor in that with each injury (and there will be more), he comes back weaker.  That’s 2 and a half more years of that.  He’s undoubtedly had a bit about him and has been a threat, but it’s diminishing and I think it’s now more that people inflate his super sub role because that’s how they remember it in 20/21.  It’s now 2023

His goal/assist return wasn’t as good as previous years but he still impacted the game and improved us. Pretty much every time he came on we looked more threatening than before (though maybe that says something about how the rest of the team were playing at the time). The Ipswich game was his best and he didn’t even score but was involved in all 4 goals. If we pay him off we will end up paying his full contract so might as well just keep him and keep trying to get him fit enough to play 

cabbles said:

Cafc43v3r said:

cabbles said:

CAFCOlly said:

Get him fit and use him exclusively for 15 minutes at the end of games where we’re needing a goal. Don’t bother starting him or even giving him 45 minutes.

It’s obviously not ideal but we’ve got him for another few years - we’re going to have to accommodate him whether we like it or not. 

15 minutes from Chuks is more dangerous than a full 90 minutes from Stockley.

Stockley is a low bar.  I’d argue having him for 15 minutes a game isn’t dangerous enough to get us out this league and not sustainable.  You just never know when he’ll break down again.  

I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but should he even train.  Different circumstances, but Ledley King didn’t train for spurs for a period of his career.  I’ve got no idea if this would be applicable to Aneke.

On the whole though, the best option would be to try and ship him on somehow, even if that means taking a hit financially 

This is the pardox though.  If we were in the position to pay Aneke off, we wouldn't need to pay him off.

In addition to Chuks we have got 5 players, who are under contract for next season, who are unselectable because they are either simply not good enough or not suited to the way we play, or mix of both.

You could probably get away with 2 or 3, like we did in 2019, but 6 is far, far too many.  That doesn't include the other couple that are out of contract in the summer.

Yes, combined with Kirk, Mansfield, Stockley and others, we’ve got a challenge in how that impacts the playing squad next year.

For me, I think the question is, do we want either Stockley or Aneke here at the start of next season?  In my opinion, no.  Stockley has all the mobility and threat of someone that’s taken a hit of spice before a game, and Aneke is knackered.

it might sound harsh, but it’s the truth. I think most people are willing to see the back of Stockley, but there are a number of people who still cling onto this impact from the bench role Aneke has.  Since he returned in the Exeter game I think he got 3 in 12, I’m sure there were a couple of assists in there as well.  If he’s as good an impact player as everyone keeps making out, that’s not actually a great return imo.  

I think you also have to factor in that with each injury (and there will be more), he comes back weaker.  That’s 2 and a half more years of that.  He’s undoubtedly had a bit about him and has been a threat, but it’s diminishing and I think it’s now more that people inflate his super sub role because that’s how they remember it in 20/21.  It’s now 2023

I don't think, in the scheme of things, it matters if you have one or the other.  The same is true for Kirk and DJ and Lavelle and Thomas.  Everyone is obsessed with "getting people of the wage bill" when there is no evidence that their saved wages, or any transfer fee, would be re invested in the squad.  A lot of people wanted Purrington and Washington "jogged on".  How did that work out? 

Don't know what Chuks will do when he hangs up his boots, and has to go out into the job market in the real world, where sick pay is only for the salaried staff. 
Hope he has a few quid tucked away for a rainy day, or perhaps he thinks he will get appearance money for turning to work.

I thought he was back in training again, as he only plays about 20 minutes, how fit does he need to be? Is it a mental health problem, if so, he may never be ready, and I wish him well 

cabbles said:

CAFCOlly said:

Get him fit and use him exclusively for 15 minutes at the end of games where we’re needing a goal. Don’t bother starting him or even giving him 45 minutes.

It’s obviously not ideal but we’ve got him for another few years - we’re going to have to accommodate him whether we like it or not. 

15 minutes from Chuks is more dangerous than a full 90 minutes from Stockley.

Stockley is a low bar.  I’d argue having him for 15 minutes a game isn’t dangerous enough to get us out this league and not sustainable.  You just never know when he’ll break down again.  

I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but should he even train.  Different circumstances, but Ledley King didn’t train for spurs for a period of his career.  I’ve got no idea if this would be applicable to Aneke.

On the whole though, the best option would be to try and ship him on somehow, even if that means taking a hit financially 

Ledley King and Chris Solly had a bespoke training course because of the state of theirs knees.

Chuks Aneke is such a frustrating situation for everyone concerned. When Jayden Stockley said Chuks had to be convinced he was capable of starting a game last season you realize there are major demons in his mind as well as a body he doesn't trust. 

Since he came back from Birmingham the Minutes he is 'fit' are going down. Missing so many training sessions that he can never get up to the optimal performance.

He should've been given one year's contract and a years option if he played so many matches.
Professional football isn't a charity but players should be treated as people not commodities. 

I also agree with Stockley that Aneke would be playing high up in the Championship if he could play more matches and stay fit. That would've been a few years ago but after Birmingham that just won't happen now as he just can't do the hard yards or the games.

Sad for Chuks and sad for the fans. 

AFKABartram said:

Garrymanilow said:

AFKABartram said:

NabySarr said:

Here’s this weeks update. Sounds like he won’t be in the squad tomorrow but hopefully I’m wrong. Will offer a lot more than Stockley off the bench 

I read this very much as a masking statement and I can’t really understand it. Chuks is not someone coming back from a broken leg and a year out; he was fit enough to play from the 11th Oct through to the end of Dec, so he has base fitness and muscle strength. After just a fortnight break he’s had two full weeks of training. He’ll only be returning to his max 30 min role. 

Where i I don’t understand is Holden is a short term manager very much needing short term results. Chuks is our best match changing option late off the bench. Even if only for 20 mins he’s worth a bench place after two weeks training for what he can potentially offer. A result today is crucial.

I think he's looking for the difference between having Chuks for 20 mins today and having Chuks for 30 mins every week. It's not much use pushing Chuks back in and then having him break down again if you can wait a little bit, assess him, try something different and get him as a consistent impact option. We stand to get more points trying something different that keeps him more available, plenty more big games to come

That’s where I disagree mate. At 65 mins today it was 1-1 and our season was still in play had we got some momentum and nicked a winner (was never likely to happen relying on Bonne by that stage). Instead we are now looking like season over. So Aneke being super fit in 2-3 games is not going to mean an anything as our season is now over and he’ll only ever do 30 mins anyway. 

But I think that's the emotional reaction, not the logical one. Aside from the fact I think our season's been over for a lot longer than 24 hours, even if we were going to make a promotion push then we'd be realistically going to lose at least two games while still getting that 2 point per game average. If Chuks had come on yesterday at 1-1 and turned the game and we'd won it, but then broke down yet again, then what about the next 1-1 at 65 mins? Or the next four after that? What about the tough games against Wednesday, Peterborough, Ipswich, Wycombe? The fact is we can't carry on sticking Chuks on the bench, praying he changes one game and then having him out for months. He needs to be able to affect game after game after game, even if it's only for 30 mins. Right now sticking him back in in his current state doesn't do that, so it's better that Holden tries something different, gives him a bit more time and sees if he can consistently get something out of him. Losing those points to Bolton didn't feel great, but there's still 19 games left where we need to get something out of one of our highest paid players.

First off if Chuks was able to stay fit there is no way he is playing in the third tier let alone for us 

I have felt for a while he has a mental issue, Kelly Youga was the same difference being I Like Chuks whereas Youga was a showpony who bottled out of an unacceptable volume of challenges but loved running forward into space. 

I genuinely feel very sorry for Chuks if there is an understandable black spot in his mind that he can't keep quiet that is telling him his body will let him down, positive vibes are a very real thing and that must affect him constantly and drag him down. I wish things like that were as simple as saying "just get on with it, you are doing a job millions would do for free and you have all the genetic/physical attributes to be a blunderbus of a centre forward" 

You see it time and time again on the SAS show people can be physically very robust and run off a sprained ankle, deal with feet and hands coated in blisters but when they start getting those psychopaths on at them playing mind games, hitting triggers, playing baby screaming noises at them for hours a lot of tough people tap out. 

Billericaydickie said:

bolloxbolder said:

He's rarely fit. When he is we have to play him surely? Thinking we can get him to stay fit hasn't worked before so why would it work now?

Too soft as a club. Boot him out.

I wonder whether our first team squad are covered by a Health Insurance Policy.

In the real world if you are unable to work due to health issues the post is usually terminated.
Staff are medically retired on health grounds, or made redundant.

Over the years there have been many footballers who have been medically retired, surely now the time has come to call it a day with Chucks.

It is clear that it is unlikely that he will ever again be able to regularly play 90 minutes of competitive football. And if he cannot play, what is the point of keeping him. 

I think there is a big difference between being unable to work, in the real world, and a professional sports man not being fit to play.  Is he attending the "office" everyday?  Is he carrying out the reasonable duties (ie turn up to training)?

Paying out for the insurance means he can never play league football again, so why would he agree it it and why would someone (doctor for example) say he is incapable of ever playing league football again? 

Billericaydickie said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Billericaydickie said:

bolloxbolder said:

He's rarely fit. When he is we have to play him surely? Thinking we can get him to stay fit hasn't worked before so why would it work now?

Too soft as a club. Boot him out.

I wonder whether our first team squad are covered by a Health Insurance Policy.

In the real world if you are unable to work due to health issues the post is usually terminated.
Staff are medically retired on health grounds, or made redundant.

Over the years there have been many footballers who have been medically retired, surely now the time has come to call it a day with Chucks.

It is clear that it is unlikely that he will ever again be able to regularly play 90 minutes of competitive football. And if he cannot play, what is the point of keeping him. 

I think there is a big difference between being unable to work, in the real world, and a professional sports man not being fit to play.  Is he attending the "office" everyday?  Is he carrying out the reasonable duties (ie turn up to training)?

Paying out for the insurance means he can never play league football again, so why would he agree it it and why would someone (doctor for example) say he is incapable of ever playing league football again? 

If what we read is true,
Chucks either is unable to reach a level of fitness whereby he can regularly play league football, or he mentally lacks the belief, that he is fit enough to play league football.

What ever scenario is correct, Chucks is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract. 

Whether he would agree to give up playing league football is irrelevant.

Charlton employ him to play football. If he has a medical or a mental problem and he decides he cannot play, then surely he is in breach of his contract.

Look at Marcus Maddison in 2020/2021. 
Lee Bowyer was very vociferous about Maddison and his problems.
I think his contract was eventually terminated.

If the club are trying to offload the “dead wood” then Chucks needs to be shown the door.




 

Being injured isn't a breach of his contract and to instigate an insurance pay out you would need at least two expert opinions that he will never be able to do so again.  That's before Chuks proving counter opinions that he will be able to.

The only way he is being shown the door is if find someone to take him off our hands, which he has to agree to, or we pay up the last 2 and a half years of his contract. 

I don't blame Aneke for signing the contract in the slightest and if I was in his is situation there is no way in the world I would rip it up and jog on. 

SELR_addicks said:

DubaiCAFC said:

Seen people commenting about some sort of clause or silly contract Chuks is on.. Anyone share any details on this?

The silly contract is the one where he was offered a 3 and a half year deal. 

Only one detail is known so its difficult to say how silly it is.  What he is being paid is unknown, maybe it isnt much per week but with bigger appearance payments.  That would be less silly.

cafcfan said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Billericaydickie said:

bolloxbolder said:

He's rarely fit. When he is we have to play him surely? Thinking we can get him to stay fit hasn't worked before so why would it work now?

Too soft as a club. Boot him out.

I wonder whether our first team squad are covered by a Health Insurance Policy.

In the real world if you are unable to work due to health issues the post is usually terminated.
Staff are medically retired on health grounds, or made redundant.

Over the years there have been many footballers who have been medically retired, surely now the time has come to call it a day with Chucks.

It is clear that it is unlikely that he will ever again be able to regularly play 90 minutes of competitive football. And if he cannot play, what is the point of keeping him. 

I think there is a big difference between being unable to work, in the real world, and a professional sports man not being fit to play.  Is he attending the "office" everyday?  Is he carrying out the reasonable duties (ie turn up to training)?

Paying out for the insurance means he can never play league football again, so why would he agree it it and why would someone (doctor for example) say he is incapable of ever playing league football again? 

The answer to that question is, if he were sensible and properly advised he would have self-insured.

There are any number of firms prepared to offer career-ending injury insurance. Typically a player could get a payout of 5x salary as a lump sum in the event of a career ending injury (or death).  
There is also a non-contributory PFA scheme which pays out peanuts. 

In fact, all keen amateur sports people, not just professionals should seriously consider the benefit of such insurance.

Yes but that's not the point.  The point is we can't make him retire if he doesn't want to.  If he is privately insured he might consider it in 2 years time when he is 31, not when he is 29 and sat on a 2.5 year deal.

cafcfan said:

Cafc43v3r said:

cafcfan said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Billericaydickie said:

bolloxbolder said:

He's rarely fit. When he is we have to play him surely? Thinking we can get him to stay fit hasn't worked before so why would it work now?

Too soft as a club. Boot him out.

I wonder whether our first team squad are covered by a Health Insurance Policy.

In the real world if you are unable to work due to health issues the post is usually terminated.
Staff are medically retired on health grounds, or made redundant.

Over the years there have been many footballers who have been medically retired, surely now the time has come to call it a day with Chucks.

It is clear that it is unlikely that he will ever again be able to regularly play 90 minutes of competitive football. And if he cannot play, what is the point of keeping him. 

I think there is a big difference between being unable to work, in the real world, and a professional sports man not being fit to play.  Is he attending the "office" everyday?  Is he carrying out the reasonable duties (ie turn up to training)?

Paying out for the insurance means he can never play league football again, so why would he agree it it and why would someone (doctor for example) say he is incapable of ever playing league football again? 

The answer to that question is, if he were sensible and properly advised he would have self-insured.

There are any number of firms prepared to offer career-ending injury insurance. Typically a player could get a payout of 5x salary as a lump sum in the event of a career ending injury (or death).  
There is also a non-contributory PFA scheme which pays out peanuts. 

In fact, all keen amateur sports people, not just professionals should seriously consider the benefit of such insurance.

Yes but that's not the point.  The point is we can't make him retire if he doesn't want to.  If he is privately insured he might consider it in 2 years time when he is 31, not when he is 29 and sat on a 2.5 year deal.

Well, no. If a player is medically unfit to play then the Club would have the job of appointing competent medical authorities to certify that the club was entitled to terminate the contract and request a payout from the club's insurer.  So I guess a player would be sacked rather than retired. Surely, the terms of the player's personal insurance (if any) and his desire to carry on picking up wages for doing nothing is neither here nor there.

You will see from the contract extract below that the problem does not have to be permanent but just be expected to last for 20 months.

"Permanent Incapacity" shall mean either (a) "Permanent Total Disablement" as defined in the League’s personal accident insurance scheme or (b) incapacity of the Player by reason of or resulting from any injury or illness (including mental illness or disorder) where in the written opinion of an appropriately qualified medical consultant instructed by the Club (“the Initial Opinion”) and (if requested in writing either by the Club at any time or by the Player at any time but not later than twenty one days after receipt from the Club of notice in writing terminating this contract pursuant to clause 8.1) of a further such consultant approved or proposed by the Player (and in the absence of either an approval or proposal within 28 days of the request nominated on the application of either party by the President (“the President”) for the time being of the Royal College of Surgeons) (“the Further Opinion”) the Player will be unlikely by reason of such incapacity to play football to the same standard at which the Player would have played if not for such incapacity for a consecutive period of not less than twenty months commencing on the date of commencement of the incapacity PROVIDED that if the Initial Opinion and the Further Opinion disagree with one another then if the Further Opinion was given by a consultant nominated by the President it shall prevail but if not then a third opinion (“the Third Opinion”) from a consultant nominated by the President may be obtained on the application of either party and that opinion shall be final and binding for the purposes of this definition.

So he has played inside the last 20 months and there is no reason he won't play some time in the next 20 months either?  What happens if he signed for someone else inside that 20 months, he could probably sue.

There is no low cost option to "jog him on" unless he agrees to it.

cafcfan said:

Cafc43v3r said:

cafcfan said:

Cafc43v3r said:

cafcfan said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Billericaydickie said:

bolloxbolder said:

He's rarely fit. When he is we have to play him surely? Thinking we can get him to stay fit hasn't worked before so why would it work now?

Too soft as a club. Boot him out.

I wonder whether our first team squad are covered by a Health Insurance Policy.

In the real world if you are unable to work due to health issues the post is usually terminated.
Staff are medically retired on health grounds, or made redundant.

Over the years there have been many footballers who have been medically retired, surely now the time has come to call it a day with Chucks.

It is clear that it is unlikely that he will ever again be able to regularly play 90 minutes of competitive football. And if he cannot play, what is the point of keeping him. 

I think there is a big difference between being unable to work, in the real world, and a professional sports man not being fit to play.  Is he attending the "office" everyday?  Is he carrying out the reasonable duties (ie turn up to training)?

Paying out for the insurance means he can never play league football again, so why would he agree it it and why would someone (doctor for example) say he is incapable of ever playing league football again? 

The answer to that question is, if he were sensible and properly advised he would have self-insured.

There are any number of firms prepared to offer career-ending injury insurance. Typically a player could get a payout of 5x salary as a lump sum in the event of a career ending injury (or death).  
There is also a non-contributory PFA scheme which pays out peanuts. 

In fact, all keen amateur sports people, not just professionals should seriously consider the benefit of such insurance.

Yes but that's not the point.  The point is we can't make him retire if he doesn't want to.  If he is privately insured he might consider it in 2 years time when he is 31, not when he is 29 and sat on a 2.5 year deal.

Well, no. If a player is medically unfit to play then the Club would have the job of appointing competent medical authorities to certify that the club was entitled to terminate the contract and request a payout from the club's insurer.  So I guess a player would be sacked rather than retired. Surely, the terms of the player's personal insurance (if any) and his desire to carry on picking up wages for doing nothing is neither here nor there.

You will see from the contract extract below that the problem does not have to be permanent but just be expected to last for 20 months.

"Permanent Incapacity" shall mean either (a) "Permanent Total Disablement" as defined in the League’s personal accident insurance scheme or (b) incapacity of the Player by reason of or resulting from any injury or illness (including mental illness or disorder) where in the written opinion of an appropriately qualified medical consultant instructed by the Club (“the Initial Opinion”) and (if requested in writing either by the Club at any time or by the Player at any time but not later than twenty one days after receipt from the Club of notice in writing terminating this contract pursuant to clause 8.1) of a further such consultant approved or proposed by the Player (and in the absence of either an approval or proposal within 28 days of the request nominated on the application of either party by the President (“the President”) for the time being of the Royal College of Surgeons) (“the Further Opinion”) the Player will be unlikely by reason of such incapacity to play football to the same standard at which the Player would have played if not for such incapacity for a consecutive period of not less than twenty months commencing on the date of commencement of the incapacity PROVIDED that if the Initial Opinion and the Further Opinion disagree with one another then if the Further Opinion was given by a consultant nominated by the President it shall prevail but if not then a third opinion (“the Third Opinion”) from a consultant nominated by the President may be obtained on the application of either party and that opinion shall be final and binding for the purposes of this definition.

So he has played inside the last 20 months and there is no reason he won't play some time in the next 20 minutes either?  What happens if he signed for someone else inside that 20 months, he could probably sue.

There is no low cost option to "jog him on" unless he agrees to it.

This is getting tedious. It's a medical professional's view on whether a player is likely to be fit to play in the next 20 months, not whether he has played in the previous 20 months. It is difficult to imagine that any club, other than Charlton, would take a player with a very negative medical report hanging over his head. In addition you are ignoring the to the "same standard" bit. 

I agree 100%.
The guy has the fitness of an OAP.

With his medical history his playing days are surely over.
Now is the time for the club to make some strong decisions about where to go from here.