Charlton Summer Transfer Rumours 2024

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

sm said:

RonnieMoore said:

CAFCOlly 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. 

There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish Premiership 

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.

And how exactly would you make him do that ?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.

That's what contracts are.

I don’t see much willingness on Fraser's part to be bound to his contractual commitments.

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely none of which has anything to do with the actual contract though which is the point you appear to be missing... or ignoring.

Croydon said:

Oggy Red said:

Croydon said:

Oggy Red said:

Croydon said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

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.

It is interesting how we see things so differently. I don't think he has any attributes that we need and he is weak.

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.

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.

I thought he played LB at Blackburn?

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.

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.

Hopefully he comes good in CM, but saying he's spent all his career playing midfield is a stretch. 

Take your point, in terms of his professional career he’s probably played 2/3 of his time as a left back. But he still developed through the youth teams as a centre mid so his experience playing football is still as a midfielder. 

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

sm said:

RonnieMoore said:

CAFCOlly 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. 

There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish Premiership 

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.

And how exactly would you make him do that ?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.

That's what contracts are.

I don’t see much willingness on Fraser's part to be bound to his contractual commitments.

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.

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.

To be fair, contracts mean bugger all these days, if it suits a player or a club.
And no, Fraser hasn't downed tools but he has hardly busted a gut for the shirt, which should be expected as part of his contract, unless he has a 'Strolling allowed' clause?

Callumcafc said:

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.

I'm not too sure about captain cleanshorts. Firstly, none of us have watched him enough to give off that view, as he hasn't had a fair chance here.

Secondly if we view his 22/23 stats for Burton, they're not too dissimilar to Dobbos with the added bonus of creativity. Dobson was one of the highest tacklers in the league that season for reference. All averages per 90 mins

Dobsons stats 22/23: 

Tackles: 3.9 , Interceptions: 1.4, fouls: 1.6, Clearances: 1.3, Blocks 0.8, avg match rating: 6.92

Taylors stats 22/23: 

Tackles: 2.2, Interceptions: 1.3, Fouls: 1.4, Clearances: 0.9, Blocks: 0.4, average rating: 6.86

A midfielder who is averaging those kind of defensive stats is definitely not one who avoids scraps, and he has the passing range and dead ball quality to go with it. I was also told by his family he is a player with a lot of desire and that's why they were worried he may get injured again..

The reality is, because he is a player of value, Edun isn't, and other clubs are interested, he is the one we will look to shift. Its typical Charlton, lose* any player who gets a bit of interest. 

I think it will be a mistake. We still don't know if our midfield will be any good over the course of the season, and Taylor is a player that's proven he can perform to a high level in this league, very recently too. Edun has never proved that as a midfielder.

golfaddick said:

Not been a signing for over a month. The No1 shirt is still vacant going into the 2nd week of the season & we have a number of players surplus to requirements who we cant shift. 

And to cap it all there is no hint of a transfer rumour. 

Good job we did a lot of business early Golfie, other wise you’d be apoplectic!

We're waiting for the Gomez windfall, then we'll splash the cash.

Maybe.

Major said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

Henry Irving said:

sm said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

sm said:

RonnieMoore said:

CAFCOlly 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. 

There are takers for Fraser but they can’t compete with the wages we pay and that’s in the Scottish Premiership 

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.

And how exactly would you make him do that ?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Yes, Fraser signed the contract but so did the club so it binds both parties.

That's what contracts are.

I don’t see much willingness on Fraser's part to be bound to his contractual commitments.

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.

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.

To be fair, contracts mean bugger all these days, if it suits a player or a club.
And no, Fraser hasn't downed tools but he has hardly busted a gut for the shirt, which should be expected as part of his contract, unless he has a 'Strolling allowed' clause?

There are many metrics to assess a player as to his commitment and “worth”. How does he train, measured fitness levels and goals, timekeeping, attitude and yes performance. Only the last two are relatively subjective and would be difficult to prove or use in any type of club disciplinary or looking at the nonsense elsewhere on this thread about breach of contract. I agree it hasn’t worked out for Fraser in the way we all, including the club and player had hoped. This disappointing state of affairs can and will be replicated at every club up and down the country in all divisions. The club, fans and player know this and the fact that he’d now like a move to Scotland or that the club are actively seeking to move him on has no bearing on his signed contract which as far as I can tell is being met in full by both club and player. I hope it is resolved before deadline for everyone concerned but please let’s stop the absolute bollox about contract breaches. 

Henry Irving said:

We're waiting for the Gomez windfall, then we'll splash the cash.

Maybe.

I'd stick it in,, the buy back the valley kitty's , hopefully one exists.

jonseventyfive said:

Henry Irving said:

We're waiting for the Gomez windfall, then we'll splash the cash.

Maybe.

I'd stick it in,, the buy back the valley kitty's , hopefully one exists.

I very much doubt the owners are “saving up” to buy back The Valley. That’s not really how business works. It will be on an agenda somewhere but will only happen if and when it benefits the business model. At present the clubs situation and status doesn’t warrant an expenditure of that magnitude. My personal opinion is that it won’t happen until the lease needs re negotiating and based on that might or might not become a viable option. I’m not that hopeful we’ll see everything under one owner possibly ever.

Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here but there’s a rumour going around that Charlton and Wrexham are sniffing around our Tom Bradshaw

MillwallFan said:

Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here but there’s a rumour going around that Charlton and Wrexham are sniffing around our Tom Bradshaw

Jesus. Your posting alone will anger a poster beginning with D! But posting a rumour on the rumours thread!!! How dare you 

MillwallFan said:

Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here but there’s a rumour going around that Charlton and Wrexham are sniffing around our Tom Bradshaw

He's Welsh, grew up in Shrewsbury (an hours drive from Wrexham) and they need a striker more than we do

sam3110 said:

MillwallFan said:

Not sure if it’s been mentioned on here but there’s a rumour going around that Charlton and Wrexham are sniffing around our Tom Bradshaw

He's Welsh, grew up in Shrewsbury (an hours drive from Wrexham) and they need a striker more than we do

On the latest South London Football podcast, Richard Cawley mentioned that Wrexham had been linked but thought it very unlikely that Bradshaw would move, as he was probably Neil Harris’ first choice striker at present.