Summer Transfer Rumours - Deadline Day p446

Cafc43v3r said:

NabySarr said:

thenewbie said:

Garrymanilow said:

GetYerCoreyOut said:

https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/93311/chuks-aneke-speculation-re-2023-24-season-p60/p66

Got a rumour?

Asked for an update on the recruitment front, Holden explained: “We know where we need to strengthen and those decisions have already been made. Obviously there will probably be players to leave the club before the window closes as you see at every club and in every transfer window naturally.

“We want to keep quite a trim squad,” he added. “We don’t want too many who aren’t going to be getting a lot of game time - I think it’s important from a psychological side as a player that you always feel close to the team.”

https://www.charltonafc.com/news/holden-were-ready-go

No rumour but does look like we're looking at shifting a few more out still.

Jaiyesimi
McGrandles
Kirk (later in the window as he might need to play the first few games)
Egbo (if a new right wing back comes in)
Plus Mitchell and Kanu on non-league loans once we have signed new striker and hopefully centre back 

I wouldn't loan out Mitchell and Kanu.  At their age they would benefit more from the coaching we can provide and the pizza cup games supplementing their own u21 games. As well as any other education they are undertaking.

Maybe look at a month long loan once we are out of the cups.  But no rush.

Henry needs a loan because he needs to play, I would say the same for Deji if we bring in another defender. But would say we should try for league 2, or even league 1.

The ones that should have non league loans are the ones that are in the second years of their pro contracts and unlikely to make it with us, like Barker last season, so they can find their level and help keep them in the professional game.

Generally speaking I don't see the point in non-league loans for players that have, at least, championship potential.  They will normally play for our first team when they are ready.  Someone will correct me straight away, but I can't remember any of our better youngsters really having non-league loans, nor those of the "other" local clubs.

Cafc43v3r said:

sam3110 said:

Will mean McGrandles stays I reckon. 

Still think if you're playing a 3 man midfield you need 6 senior pros for it, and Anderson coming through is a happy bonus. 

I think 5 + 1 is fine tbh but we have 6 + 1 at the moment don't we?

Dobson
Fraser 
Camara 
Taylor
Payne 
McGrandles 

Anderson

Would happily sacrifice McGrandles, or Payne, to bring a 4th striker or a better center back though.

But overall happy with the CM options.

Cafc43v3r said:

sam3110 said:

Will mean McGrandles stays I reckon. 

Still think if you're playing a 3 man midfield you need 6 senior pros for it, and Anderson coming through is a happy bonus. 

I think 5 + 1 is fine tbh but we have 6 + 1 at the moment don't we?

Dobson
Fraser 
Camara 
Taylor
Payne 
McGrandles 

Anderson

Would happily sacrifice McGrandles, or Payne, to bring a 4th striker or a better center back though.

But overall happy with the CM options.

MickeyBennett said:

talalsrightfoot said:

NabySarr said:

talalsrightfoot said:

NabySarr said:

talalsrightfoot said:

NabySarr said:

talalsrightfoot said:

arny23394 said:

talalsrightfoot said:

Billericaydickie said:

The big problem we have is Chuks A&E.

In 2023 he has been out injured since February. 

Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.

Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and
his playing days are over.

Therefore he should be medically retired.

We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.

This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.

If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).

I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?

How would paying his contract up free up wages?

Every year there is a budget for wages,

Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a  year left on contract.

The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.

Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc

Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.

We won’t pay 10k lees though as that money has already been spent and taken from the total budget in paying him off. It doesn’t make sense at all to pay him off so it’s not going to happen

Hes probably on at least £5k a week, so the total pay off would be at least £500k. Would be stupid to pay that all in one go 

I explained it in a bit more detail in your other post.

Also i know he is NOT on 5k a week.

The idea that its just paying him the full contract is a simplistic naive understanding of financies for a business.

As said there are additional costs also based on employing. We also insure our players, remember that. If we decide to carry on using him and he gets injured again we will no doubt pay premiums on him and the cost of rehab as well.

Also forecast spending is a useful tool in deciding how to budget. You can try to reclaim the money from else where. Lets say for example you have 10k a more month but have paid 110k to free that up. You sign two players on 4k a month thats 8k. You are now paying 2k less so over a time period you will actually save money by getting a player who cant play out the door.

How have you saved money though? In this hypothetical scenario You’ve paid the 110k which is the £10k a week and then signed players worth £8k a week. So you’ve almost doubled your outgoing rather than saved money??? 

Jesus its not difficult.

You have two more assets who cost money yes agreed but you’re now paying 2k less a month so over time you save money upwards of 20k a season. Also if one of your new assets ends up being sold on that covers the cost.

So just to clear up, you’d release Chuks and pay him approx £500k, sign 1 or 2 players that are on less than that combined (let’s say total £400k wages and I’m guessing they are free transfers or that’s even more outgoings). And then the only way to make that back would be selling one of these cheap free transfers for a significant fee. Sounds like a terrible plan to me 

Your being deliberatly obtuse and cherry picking the points (ignoring my other posts) you wish to answer to suit your point.

So here it is for the last time, also making clear i dont wish to take money out of chuks hand.

Firstly we pay chuks the rest of his contract - so we lay out 500k agreed however we now dont have a player who CAN NOT play and reduces the associated costs of having an employee on the club which could be tens of thousands or even over 100k over a 18 month period but thats debateable what isnt is that keeping a player employed costs the clubs more than just their salary.

This reduces our wage bill circa 20k a month (according to other posters). We use this to sign a replacement on 10k. Thats a 10k reduction on wage budget. Over a year thats a 120k saving, plus we get a player who can actually play.

500k - 120k = 380k (lets ignore all the other savings of not having him employed and dealing with injury)

After just one year you have recouped almost a quarter of the layout and replaced an asset who offers no benefit and replaced with a cheaper one who could.

Chuks would still receive every penny he is entitled too so no way am i happy to take food out his mouth as one illogical poster commented.

The key here is if the club are willing to shell out 500k in one go ? I understand why they wouldnt but its a risk how much football is he going to actually play and is he gonna cost more to keep employed.

Now please if you do choose to reply at least have the ability to read all of it and not just pick the points to suit your own agenda.

Feels like I have done a line of Ketamine and stumbled into an NVQ Accounting lecture.

Manic_mania said:

talalsrightfoot said:

TelMc32 said:

talalsrightfoot said:

arny23394 said:

talalsrightfoot said:

Billericaydickie said:

The big problem we have is Chuks A&E.

In 2023 he has been out injured since February. 

Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.

Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and
his playing days are over.

Therefore he should be medically retired.

We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.

This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.

If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).

I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?

How would paying his contract up free up wages?

Every year there is a budget for wages,

Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a  year left on contract.

The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.

Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc

Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.

He has 18 months left on a contract which is, I understand, £7k per week. That’s about £540k to pay him off.  I take it you’re just magicking up a different budget to “swallow this” in order to free up your salary budget and buy other players? 🤦🏻‍♂️

p.s. I certainly wouldn’t have thought of re-hiring you after the pandemic with that attitude. There are plenty of cyber sec options out there. 

Your ignoring the point that KEEPING him employed will likely cost more in the long run for a player who CAN NOT play.

As said have it on fairly good authority he isnt on that much but even if im wrong (which i could be) the point still stands. Paying it outright (if the club has the cash) allows them to spend a portion of that freed up wage on other players so lets say your right -

Chuks was paid circa 500k a year (21k a month)

We sign a replacement for a player who cant play on 11k a month

We reduce the budget by 10k

After 1 year thats a saving of 120k so you ahve alrwady recouped over 1/5 of the payout and avodied any additional costs on an asset who is only costing money and providing no benefit.

As for my example of my work thanks for your input , without sounding personal like you have a couple of points

1) The reason pay is high in cyber sec is there is high demand low supply so dont know where this idea has came from that their are plenty of options

2) I wouldnt really want to work for someone who believes i should take food out of MY families mouth because they want to save a business owned by very wealthy people money.

sorry Mods, and AFKA, I know you closed the other thread because someone got upset and took their ball home, (ruining a perfectly good discussion btw) 

if you really want to save 120K, we could offer chuks a lump sum of 380K on his 500k two year contract - we would still take a hit but save what Tal is talking about and still give him the opportunity to get fit and earn a contract over and above the difference whether that is pay as you play at league 1, or at a slightly lower level where he would command a decent wage still.

Manic_mania said:

ElfsborgAddick said:

Manic_mania said:

talalsrightfoot said:

TelMc32 said:

talalsrightfoot said:

arny23394 said:

talalsrightfoot said:

Billericaydickie said:

The big problem we have is Chuks A&E.

In 2023 he has been out injured since February. 

Even before this latest injury in February, he only appeared as a sub in a few matches, where in my opinion watching as a spectator he definitely lacked mobility.

Let’s us be realistic, he is never going to be fit, and
his playing days are over.

Therefore he should be medically retired.

We need a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 matches a season, not a forward capable of playing 30 or 35 minutes once or twice a month, if we are lucky.

This isnt Chuks fault though as much as i agree. We gave him a silly contract knowing his problems.

If im Chuks in his situation i wouldnt go unless Charlton paid up my contract (which what i think we should do to free up space on wage bill).

I used to do some Cyber Sec consulting and on a couple of occassions companies came to me wanting to cancel contract mid-period for budget reasons brought on by C-19, revenue etc not once did i entertain the idea unless they paid me for the whole period. Chuks is in a similar position but even worse as this is more than likely his last contract. Why would he walk ?

How would paying his contract up free up wages?

Every year there is a budget for wages,

Lets say for sake of argument our budget for whole squad is 120k a month and he is getting paid 10k a month with a  year left on contract.

The club has the option of swallowing the bullet and paying him the rest of his contract which would mean we pay 10k a month less which we could spend on other players.

Now the argument against would be that we would still pay him his contract just in one go instead of bit by bit so its if the club decide they would rather just offload him. Another argument for releasing him is that there are additional fees incurred by the club (which dont go to Chuks) to keep him as there are for any other employees I.E. payroll, equipment, catering, travel etc

Also i assume he is still getting treated by our physios who could be spending more time on other players.

He has 18 months left on a contract which is, I understand, £7k per week. That’s about £540k to pay him off.  I take it you’re just magicking up a different budget to “swallow this” in order to free up your salary budget and buy other players? 🤦🏻‍♂️

p.s. I certainly wouldn’t have thought of re-hiring you after the pandemic with that attitude. There are plenty of cyber sec options out there. 

Your ignoring the point that KEEPING him employed will likely cost more in the long run for a player who CAN NOT play.

As said have it on fairly good authority he isnt on that much but even if im wrong (which i could be) the point still stands. Paying it outright (if the club has the cash) allows them to spend a portion of that freed up wage on other players so lets say your right -

Chuks was paid circa 500k a year (21k a month)

We sign a replacement for a player who cant play on 11k a month

We reduce the budget by 10k

After 1 year thats a saving of 120k so you ahve alrwady recouped over 1/5 of the payout and avodied any additional costs on an asset who is only costing money and providing no benefit.

As for my example of my work thanks for your input , without sounding personal like you have a couple of points

1) The reason pay is high in cyber sec is there is high demand low supply so dont know where this idea has came from that their are plenty of options

2) I wouldnt really want to work for someone who believes i should take food out of MY families mouth because they want to save a business owned by very wealthy people money.

sorry Mods, and AFKA, I know you closed the other thread because someone got upset and took their ball home, (ruining a perfectly good discussion btw) 

if you really want to save 120K, we could offer chuks a lump sum of 380K on his 500k two year contract - we would still take a hit but save what Tal is talking about and still give him the opportunity to get fit and earn a contract over and above the difference whether that is pay as you play at league 1, or at a slightly lower level where he would command a decent wage still.

Overlooking the fact that the geezer is very unlikely to say yes to losing 120k

or... the guy gets offered 380K lump sum and can go out and can earn a good wage elsewhere on top of it..? I guess it depends if he considers it losing 120K or sees it as an opportunity to earn more if he can get fit? I didn't say it was a perfect scenario

Cafc43v3r said:

Callumcafc said:

Not a position of immediate need but think we should be throwing our hat in the ring for this one… a proper left back to compete with Edun long term. 

 English, only 25, started his career at Brighton. Played 100 games in the Eredivisie across four seasons, been on trial at Hull but isn’t being offered a contract there. Wigan now apparent front runners.

 

https://twitter.com/fortuna_046/status/1687566364582567936?s=46&t=ynww82GMl7VKBjthBflU0g

We certainly do need another left back/wing back but is he one or is he an "proper" left back?  Seems to score quite a few goals for a full back.

Or does George Cox just make snazzy shoes?

Callumcafc said:

https://youtu.be/HFgvzQ8B6QM

Oggy Red said:

North Lower Neil said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

North Lower Neil said:

I don't think either is backup.

They're competition, if one plays well, they'll keep playing. 

I think that’s quite a luxury for a league one team. 

It's not though.

People need to get out of the mindset of 11 good players and a few 'do a job' back up types.

It's a long season, we'll get injuries, we need more than say 3 decent midfielders, or you end up with the average backup playing 35 games a season and finishing midtable.

Yep, I agree too. Not only cover for injuries though.

Also I feel many posters not taking into account that in a 99 minute game (as it seems to be now), often played at high intensity - midfielders can burn out, simply knackered.

Fresh legs may be needed and with up to 5 subs able to be used, we're likely to see all the CMs needed and involved.
Tactical changes as well, of course. It'll be part of the game plan.