Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton Summer Transfer Rumours 2024
Comments
-
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.5 -
There is an implied term about performance standards in any contract of employment - has Fraser really been performing to the expected level of ability? Strikes me as an ideal candidate for statutory redundancy pay. Footballers are clearly not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.Henry Irving said:
No, they are required to do what is in their contract of employment, which in Fraser's case is to be available to play football for Charlton Athletic.sm said:
Aren't employees required to do what they are told anymore? Alternatively, we could offer to release him from his overly generous contract - it isnt as though he has offered much in return for his rather large salary. in the rest of the world no one would be quite so generous/polite to a n9n performing employee earning as much as is reported.ShootersHillGuru said:
And how exactly would you make him do that ?sm said:
Sounds like the Scots have us over a barrel - make low ball offers and then wait until the last moment when we have to get rid of a disaffected player. Given the games being played I'd be tempted to make him go to Torquay United on a loan for next to nothing.RonnieMoore said:
There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish PremiershipCAFCOlly said:Moving Taylor on is likely more to do with the fact that we can't shift Fraser but we still need to improve the midfield/other areas. I'm sure Jones would rather shift Fraser than Taylor but there (unsurprisingly) seems to be no takers for Fraser.
More likely to be interest in Taylor which would then open up budget to strengthen the squad whilst still having Fraser on the books.
Not Torquay or anyone else unless he agrees.
IMHO it's a three way game of poker. Clubs will take him but only if we pay some of his wages, we are asking for X% but the other clubs are only offering Y%.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Fraser would take a payoff ala Charlie Kirk but again we might be offering X and he's is holding out for Y, as is his right.
He was given a contract and is entitled to see it out just as we are entitled to hold on to any players registration unless another club offers us the fee we want
There is always a balance to be struck between employer and employee and in general I would argue that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the employer in recent years, but with footballers earning getting on for a reported near £500k per year in the case of Fraser the balance is clearly wrong. Fraser signed the initial lucrative contract and if he doesn't want to fulfil it and move to Scotland with his family it seems wrong that he should expect to be paid out in full.3 -
He could probably be useful in the "Bakinson" role where you have teams who like to pass and play and you need someone to throw on to try and break the rhythm a bit.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
If he's worth keeping purely on that basis I don't know, personally I'd shed no tears if he left and would keep Taylor instead if I had to pick one of the two - but I don't, Jones does so let's see how that goes.1 -
I think we’d probably prefer to keep Taylor, but if one of them needs offloading then he’s the more likely to have suitors. Edun is probably on good money and I can’t see anyone offering him similarthenewbie said:
He could probably be useful in the "Bakinson" role where you have teams who like to pass and play and you need someone to throw on to try and break the rhythm a bit.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
If he's worth keeping purely on that basis I don't know, personally I'd shed no tears if he left and would keep Taylor instead if I had to pick one of the two - but I don't, Jones does so let's see how that goes.1 -
That's true. I can't see both going though, at least not unless someone else comes in first or is absolutely nailed on to sign, as that would leave us short on numbers, especially given how intensely Jones likes his team to play.NabySarr said:
I think we’d probably prefer to keep Taylor, but if one of them needs offloading then he’s the more likely to have suitors. Edun is probably on good money and I can’t see anyone offering him similarthenewbie said:
He could probably be useful in the "Bakinson" role where you have teams who like to pass and play and you need someone to throw on to try and break the rhythm a bit.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
If he's worth keeping purely on that basis I don't know, personally I'd shed no tears if he left and would keep Taylor instead if I had to pick one of the two - but I don't, Jones does so let's see how that goes.
0 -
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
11 -
There was a Bakinson role?
10 -
He used to play in midfield though apparently.Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.We haven’t seen Taylor in training, whereas NJ has. And when he’s had minutes he looked pretty lightweight didn’t he?1 -
Some of the hate for Tayo is way OTT, he's never been a hider, he looks absolutely shagged of confidence at the moment to me. Hopefully if we can get a run going, being around a successful side will lift him up. Bradley Pritchard was someone who I think benefited from an environment like I described26
-
Edun was a midfielder though. Could argue his left back experiment is overCroydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Hardly worth a responsesm said:
There is an implied term about performance standards in any contract of employment - has Fraser really been performing to the expected level of ability? Strikes me as an ideal candidate for statutory redundancy pay. Footballers are clearly not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.Henry Irving said:
No, they are required to do what is in their contract of employment, which in Fraser's case is to be available to play football for Charlton Athletic.sm said:
Aren't employees required to do what they are told anymore? Alternatively, we could offer to release him from his overly generous contract - it isnt as though he has offered much in return for his rather large salary. in the rest of the world no one would be quite so generous/polite to a n9n performing employee earning as much as is reported.ShootersHillGuru said:
And how exactly would you make him do that ?sm said:
Sounds like the Scots have us over a barrel - make low ball offers and then wait until the last moment when we have to get rid of a disaffected player. Given the games being played I'd be tempted to make him go to Torquay United on a loan for next to nothing.RonnieMoore said:
There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish PremiershipCAFCOlly said:Moving Taylor on is likely more to do with the fact that we can't shift Fraser but we still need to improve the midfield/other areas. I'm sure Jones would rather shift Fraser than Taylor but there (unsurprisingly) seems to be no takers for Fraser.
More likely to be interest in Taylor which would then open up budget to strengthen the squad whilst still having Fraser on the books.
Not Torquay or anyone else unless he agrees.
IMHO it's a three way game of poker. Clubs will take him but only if we pay some of his wages, we are asking for X% but the other clubs are only offering Y%.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Fraser would take a payoff ala Charlie Kirk but again we might be offering X and he's is holding out for Y, as is his right.
He was given a contract and is entitled to see it out just as we are entitled to hold on to any players registration unless another club offers us the fee we want
There is always a balance to be struck between employer and employee and in general I would argue that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the employer in recent years, but with footballers earning getting on for a reported near £500k per year in the case of Fraser the balance is clearly wrong. Fraser signed the initial lucrative contract and if he doesn't want to fulfil it and move to Scotland with his family it seems wrong that he should expect to be paid out in full.3 -
Major said:
Well, thats eight and a half minutes I'll never get back.Callumcafc said:
Bloody hell, I got to 30 seconds and couldn't work out if he was nervous or not and gave up 😅0 -
Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
Experiment with Edun in midfield?
Edun's actual position is midfield, always was.
All his career Edun played as a midfielder.
At Lincoln, his manager Appleton eventually asked him to cover at LB during an injury crisis.
Now Jones is playing Edun in midfield again, his natural position.2 -
I will never not be amazed by the idiocy of people comparing footballers' contracts and responsibilities to standard employment contracts16
-
...unless they're binding 🙄Garrymanilow said:I will never not be amazed by the idiocy of people comparing footballers' contracts and responsibilities to standard employment contracts3 -
Surely there must be some more Lincoln, Ipswich, Cambridge, or Luton players we could sign?13
-
Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.sm said:
There is an implied term about performance standards in any contract of employment - has Fraser really been performing to the expected level of ability? Strikes me as an ideal candidate for statutory redundancy pay. Footballers are clearly not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.Henry Irving said:
No, they are required to do what is in their contract of employment, which in Fraser's case is to be available to play football for Charlton Athletic.sm said:
Aren't employees required to do what they are told anymore? Alternatively, we could offer to release him from his overly generous contract - it isnt as though he has offered much in return for his rather large salary. in the rest of the world no one would be quite so generous/polite to a n9n performing employee earning as much as is reported.ShootersHillGuru said:
And how exactly would you make him do that ?sm said:
Sounds like the Scots have us over a barrel - make low ball offers and then wait until the last moment when we have to get rid of a disaffected player. Given the games being played I'd be tempted to make him go to Torquay United on a loan for next to nothing.RonnieMoore said:
There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish PremiershipCAFCOlly said:Moving Taylor on is likely more to do with the fact that we can't shift Fraser but we still need to improve the midfield/other areas. I'm sure Jones would rather shift Fraser than Taylor but there (unsurprisingly) seems to be no takers for Fraser.
More likely to be interest in Taylor which would then open up budget to strengthen the squad whilst still having Fraser on the books.
Not Torquay or anyone else unless he agrees.
IMHO it's a three way game of poker. Clubs will take him but only if we pay some of his wages, we are asking for X% but the other clubs are only offering Y%.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Fraser would take a payoff ala Charlie Kirk but again we might be offering X and he's is holding out for Y, as is his right.
He was given a contract and is entitled to see it out just as we are entitled to hold on to any players registration unless another club offers us the fee we want
There is always a balance to be struck between employer and employee and in general I would argue that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the employer in recent years, but with footballers earning getting on for a reported near £500k per year in the case of Fraser the balance is clearly wrong. Fraser signed the initial lucrative contract and if he doesn't want to fulfil it and move to Scotland with his family it seems wrong that he should expect to be paid out in full.
That's what contracts are.
6 -
I thought he played LB at Blackburn?Oggy Red said:Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
Experiment with Edun in midfield?
Edun's actual position is midfield, always was.
All his career Edun played as a midfielder.
At Lincoln, his manager Appleton eventually asked him to cover at LB during an injury crisis.
Now Jones is playing Edun in midfield again, his natural position.0 -
Croydon said:
I thought he played LB at Blackburn?Oggy Red said:Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
Experiment with Edun in midfield?
Edun's actual position is midfield, always was.
All his career Edun played as a midfielder.
At Lincoln, his manager Appleton eventually asked him to cover at LB during an injury crisis.
Now Jones is playing Edun in midfield again, his natural position.
He did. And pulled up no trees.
Blackburn signed Edun on the back of one impressive season at LB at Lincoln, filling in at LB.
But before that, Lincoln had signed him and played him as a midfielder, as he had done all his career previously at Fulham, Ipswich and every level of England youth/development team.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Hadn’t realised Edun was a CM or his previous pedigree. Hopefully he comes good.0
-
Jones talks about front footed, aggressive football. Edun went through the age groups & and at Lincoln with a bit of a reputation for being aggressive and hot headed, and I think Jones likes that in him.
By comparison, Terry Taylor is probably a decent player at this level but he doesn’t have those same characteristics. It’s not a bad thing but he definitely gives a “Captain Cleanshorts” type of vibe when he’s on the pitch and that doesn’t mesh as well with what Jones wants to see from his midfield players.
If TT is the only saleable asset we have right now that can allow Jones to go out and get one more player that he really likes then I can see the logic in doing that while carrying Edun as the 5th/6th midfielder in the squad instead.4 -
Get more money for him to contribute to Fraser's wages.Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.0 -
I don’t see much willingness on Fraser's part to be bound to his contractual commitments.Henry Irving said:
Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.sm said:
There is an implied term about performance standards in any contract of employment - has Fraser really been performing to the expected level of ability? Strikes me as an ideal candidate for statutory redundancy pay. Footballers are clearly not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.Henry Irving said:
No, they are required to do what is in their contract of employment, which in Fraser's case is to be available to play football for Charlton Athletic.sm said:
Aren't employees required to do what they are told anymore? Alternatively, we could offer to release him from his overly generous contract - it isnt as though he has offered much in return for his rather large salary. in the rest of the world no one would be quite so generous/polite to a n9n performing employee earning as much as is reported.ShootersHillGuru said:
And how exactly would you make him do that ?sm said:
Sounds like the Scots have us over a barrel - make low ball offers and then wait until the last moment when we have to get rid of a disaffected player. Given the games being played I'd be tempted to make him go to Torquay United on a loan for next to nothing.RonnieMoore said:
There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish PremiershipCAFCOlly said:Moving Taylor on is likely more to do with the fact that we can't shift Fraser but we still need to improve the midfield/other areas. I'm sure Jones would rather shift Fraser than Taylor but there (unsurprisingly) seems to be no takers for Fraser.
More likely to be interest in Taylor which would then open up budget to strengthen the squad whilst still having Fraser on the books.
Not Torquay or anyone else unless he agrees.
IMHO it's a three way game of poker. Clubs will take him but only if we pay some of his wages, we are asking for X% but the other clubs are only offering Y%.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Fraser would take a payoff ala Charlie Kirk but again we might be offering X and he's is holding out for Y, as is his right.
He was given a contract and is entitled to see it out just as we are entitled to hold on to any players registration unless another club offers us the fee we want
There is always a balance to be struck between employer and employee and in general I would argue that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the employer in recent years, but with footballers earning getting on for a reported near £500k per year in the case of Fraser the balance is clearly wrong. Fraser signed the initial lucrative contract and if he doesn't want to fulfil it and move to Scotland with his family it seems wrong that he should expect to be paid out in full.
That's what contracts are.4 -
I see Derby have signed a new Swedish keeper.
Would this make Josh Vickers available?0 -
Which part of his contract has he broken? He hasn't downed tools, he's still training, he went to Slovenia for the summer camp, he's not refusing to play, he just isn't being picked.sm said:
I don’t see much willingness on Fraser's part to be bound to his contractual commitments.Henry Irving said:
Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.sm said:
There is an implied term about performance standards in any contract of employment - has Fraser really been performing to the expected level of ability? Strikes me as an ideal candidate for statutory redundancy pay. Footballers are clearly not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.Henry Irving said:
No, they are required to do what is in their contract of employment, which in Fraser's case is to be available to play football for Charlton Athletic.sm said:
Aren't employees required to do what they are told anymore? Alternatively, we could offer to release him from his overly generous contract - it isnt as though he has offered much in return for his rather large salary. in the rest of the world no one would be quite so generous/polite to a n9n performing employee earning as much as is reported.ShootersHillGuru said:
And how exactly would you make him do that ?sm said:
Sounds like the Scots have us over a barrel - make low ball offers and then wait until the last moment when we have to get rid of a disaffected player. Given the games being played I'd be tempted to make him go to Torquay United on a loan for next to nothing.RonnieMoore said:
There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish PremiershipCAFCOlly said:Moving Taylor on is likely more to do with the fact that we can't shift Fraser but we still need to improve the midfield/other areas. I'm sure Jones would rather shift Fraser than Taylor but there (unsurprisingly) seems to be no takers for Fraser.
More likely to be interest in Taylor which would then open up budget to strengthen the squad whilst still having Fraser on the books.
Not Torquay or anyone else unless he agrees.
IMHO it's a three way game of poker. Clubs will take him but only if we pay some of his wages, we are asking for X% but the other clubs are only offering Y%.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Fraser would take a payoff ala Charlie Kirk but again we might be offering X and he's is holding out for Y, as is his right.
He was given a contract and is entitled to see it out just as we are entitled to hold on to any players registration unless another club offers us the fee we want
There is always a balance to be struck between employer and employee and in general I would argue that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the employer in recent years, but with footballers earning getting on for a reported near £500k per year in the case of Fraser the balance is clearly wrong. Fraser signed the initial lucrative contract and if he doesn't want to fulfil it and move to Scotland with his family it seems wrong that he should expect to be paid out in full.
That's what contracts are.
Imagine the boot was on the other foot and Alfie May had said in the summer "you signed me as part of a promotion push, I scored the goals but the rest of the team wasn't good enough therefore I'm ripping up my contract and am moving to Birmingham for no fee".
That is what you are arguing for.
That's why club's sign players on long contracts; to protect that investment. It's why players sign long contracts; to protect their earnings.
Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't but the contract is the contract.
If we don't want him we can pay him off. If Fraser is so desperate to go he can ask to be released for no fee (as Small was) to find another club. Right now, neither side has reached that point.
By 30 August, deadline day, that might have changed.22 -
He had few appearances combined at Ipswich and Fulham, and has since played more as a LB than he has a midfielder in men's football.Oggy Red said:Croydon said:
I thought he played LB at Blackburn?Oggy Red said:Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
Experiment with Edun in midfield?
Edun's actual position is midfield, always was.
All his career Edun played as a midfielder.
At Lincoln, his manager Appleton eventually asked him to cover at LB during an injury crisis.
Now Jones is playing Edun in midfield again, his natural position.
He did. And pulled up no trees.
Blackburn signed Edun on the back of one impressive season at LB at Lincoln, filling in at LB.
But before that, Lincoln had signed him and played him as a midfielder, as he had done all his career previously at Fulham, Ipswich and every level of England youth/development team.
Hopefully he comes good in CM, but saying he's spent all his career playing midfield is a stretch.
1 -
So you think Fraser has shown the same level of effort that he did in his first season and a half? I would expect a player of that ability and salary to make more of an effort in order to get picked - it is pretty obvious as to who NJ's comments about some players doing more was directed. Yes I would contrast his attitude and performance with that of Alfie May who also wanted to move for his family.Henry Irving said:
Which part of his contract has he broken? He hasn't downed tools, he's still training, he went to Slovenia for the summer camp, he's not refusing to play, he just isn't being picked.sm said:
I don’t see much willingness on Fraser's part to be bound to his contractual commitments.Henry Irving said:
Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.sm said:
There is an implied term about performance standards in any contract of employment - has Fraser really been performing to the expected level of ability? Strikes me as an ideal candidate for statutory redundancy pay. Footballers are clearly not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.Henry Irving said:
No, they are required to do what is in their contract of employment, which in Fraser's case is to be available to play football for Charlton Athletic.sm said:
Aren't employees required to do what they are told anymore? Alternatively, we could offer to release him from his overly generous contract - it isnt as though he has offered much in return for his rather large salary. in the rest of the world no one would be quite so generous/polite to a n9n performing employee earning as much as is reported.ShootersHillGuru said:
And how exactly would you make him do that ?sm said:
Sounds like the Scots have us over a barrel - make low ball offers and then wait until the last moment when we have to get rid of a disaffected player. Given the games being played I'd be tempted to make him go to Torquay United on a loan for next to nothing.RonnieMoore said:
There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish PremiershipCAFCOlly said:Moving Taylor on is likely more to do with the fact that we can't shift Fraser but we still need to improve the midfield/other areas. I'm sure Jones would rather shift Fraser than Taylor but there (unsurprisingly) seems to be no takers for Fraser.
More likely to be interest in Taylor which would then open up budget to strengthen the squad whilst still having Fraser on the books.
Not Torquay or anyone else unless he agrees.
IMHO it's a three way game of poker. Clubs will take him but only if we pay some of his wages, we are asking for X% but the other clubs are only offering Y%.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Fraser would take a payoff ala Charlie Kirk but again we might be offering X and he's is holding out for Y, as is his right.
He was given a contract and is entitled to see it out just as we are entitled to hold on to any players registration unless another club offers us the fee we want
There is always a balance to be struck between employer and employee and in general I would argue that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the employer in recent years, but with footballers earning getting on for a reported near £500k per year in the case of Fraser the balance is clearly wrong. Fraser signed the initial lucrative contract and if he doesn't want to fulfil it and move to Scotland with his family it seems wrong that he should expect to be paid out in full.
That's what contracts are.
Imagine the boot was on the other foot and Alfie May had said in the summer "you signed me as part of a promotion push, I scored the goals but the rest of the team wasn't good enough therefore I'm ripping up my contract and am moving to Birmingham for no fee".
That is what you are arguing for.
That's why club's sign players on long contracts; to protect that investment. It's why players sign long contracts; to protect their earnings.
Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't but the contract is the contract.
If we don't want him we can pay him off. If Fraser is so desperate to go he can ask to be released for no fee (as Small was) to find another club. Right now, neither side has reached that point.
By 30 August, deadline day, that might have changed.3 -
Change of tune after being challenged, shockCroydon said:
He had few appearances combined at Ipswich and Fulham, and has since played more as a LB than he has a midfielder in men's football.Oggy Red said:Croydon said:
I thought he played LB at Blackburn?Oggy Red said:Croydon said:
I can't work out why we're happy to offload an actual midfielder in Taylor and keep a player in Edun who was so crap in his actual position, we're having to experiment with him in a midfield role.MuttleyCAFC said:
It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.king addick said:Cant see why Edun cant be an asset to the team. I will admit has has looked much more comfortable in CM than at LB though he can offer that versatility. He seems to have an engine on him and isn't afraid to stick a leg in where it counts.
Experiment with Edun in midfield?
Edun's actual position is midfield, always was.
All his career Edun played as a midfielder.
At Lincoln, his manager Appleton eventually asked him to cover at LB during an injury crisis.
Now Jones is playing Edun in midfield again, his natural position.
He did. And pulled up no trees.
Blackburn signed Edun on the back of one impressive season at LB at Lincoln, filling in at LB.
But before that, Lincoln had signed him and played him as a midfielder, as he had done all his career previously at Fulham, Ipswich and every level of England youth/development team.
Hopefully he comes good in CM, but saying he's spent all his career playing midfield is a stretch.0
https://youtu.be/QchapCka-aU?si=dGVQA2rg0UHEcjyG
This discussion has been closed.
