Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Charlie Kirk (p67 - released by Crewe)

1272830323368

Comments

  • DubaiCAFC said:
    Chunes said:
    seth plum said:
    Chunes said:
    Billy_Mix said:
    Sent him back to us so they can re negotiate buying him for a cheaper price. 

    https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/blackpool-still-interested-in-summer-deal-for-charlton-athletic-winger/
    Crewe took our pants down in spectacular fashion on CK
    Expectations of getting a significant 6 figure fee for that one-paced lightweight are cloud cuckoo land.

    Our experience with DJ and CK suggests there's quite the gulf between midtable 4th and midtable 3rd division quality 
    He was never rubbish for an us, he just wasn't good either. And yet a Championship club is interesting in buying him so clearly we didn't see his best. 
    I’m afraid I disagree in terms of Kirk when playing for us.
    It was like playing with ten men, and he occupied a significant position.
    The other players understandably saw him as an outlet, or at least as part of any progressive play we tried to construct, but he never stepped up. I think his waste of space play was a liability during matches.
    I honestly can’t recall in my minds eye anything good he ever did at Charlton, I have better memories of Christophe Lepoint.
    I am sure he is a good guy, and I am sorry he lost his dad, but it may be best and civilised all round if he moved on.
    I said he wasn't rubbish and I stand by that. I'd define 'rubbish' as someone misplacing passes, losing possession easily, hiding, etc. (ala Alex Gilbey). Kirk was pretty tidy, although didn't offer much attacking threat. There were no gasps of frustration going round when he was on the pitch.
    I can safely say he was one of the worst pieces of ‘rubbish’ business we have done in my 64 years of support.

    Plenty worse that's for sure, Abbott to name one..
    Loads more......loads, loads more.

    Kirk joined us during one of our worst footballing periods ever, sinking to 2nd bottom at one stage. At the same time he has just lost his father & moved hundreds of miles away from his family. Then a new manager took over who wanted to play players out of position (defenders & wingers as wing backs)  - a formation that doesn't suit Kirk. 

    Any wonder why he might not have been playing as well as he could. I think it would he foolish to sell him when we havent really given him a chance, in a settled team playing in his favoured position. 

    Christ, we gave players like Ben Reeves &  Josh Parker more time than Kirk had.
    He didn’t really want to be here in the first place….and never settled, for whatever reason/reasons.
    What makes you think he would want to return?
    I’d be very surprised to say the least.
    If he didn't want to be here, why did he sign the contract 
    You’re not the first person to wonder why.
  • Chunes said:
    wmcf123 said:
    I just don't see where he gets in.  We do not have the players to play in a 433 and that's the only system in which he can play.  
    What formation do we have the players for?
    At the moment, something without full backs
    Or center backs and one up top. 

    2-7-1?
  • The bloke didn't play one full game in his natural position and we are all writing him off. He went on loan to club in the division above and they are keen to sign him permanently - tells you quite a bit.

    Hopefully under a new manager in a different formation we can see some of the CK from his Crewe spell.
     His natural position seems 'Wide of the mark' rather than wide left though.  

    He settled so well he couldn't wait to leave...Why the hell he left the North and caused Charlton  to wate 500k only he can tell. It isn’t  going to work now no matter how much we wish otherwise. 
    100% correct. 👍
  • edited May 2022
    The bloke didn't play one full game in his natural position and we are all writing him off. He went on loan to club in the division above and they are keen to sign him permanently - tells you quite a bit.

    Hopefully under a new manager in a different formation we can see some of the CK from his Crewe spell.
     His natural position seems 'Wide of the mark' rather than wide left though.  

    He settled so well he couldn't wait to leave...Why the hell he left the North and caused Charlton  to wate 500k only he can tell. It isn’t  going to work now no matter how much we wish otherwise. 
    100% correct. 👍
    Can you really blame him though?  He has no loyalty to us, signing that contract means his, very recently, widowed mum will never have to go without.

    I would do exactly the same.
  • edited May 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    The bloke didn't play one full game in his natural position and we are all writing him off. He went on loan to club in the division above and they are keen to sign him permanently - tells you quite a bit.

    Hopefully under a new manager in a different formation we can see some of the CK from his Crewe spell.
     His natural position seems 'Wide of the mark' rather than wide left though.  

    He settled so well he couldn't wait to leave...Why the hell he left the North and caused Charlton  to wate 500k only he can tell. It isn’t  going to work now no matter how much we wish otherwise. 
    100% correct. 👍
    Can you really blame him though?  He has no loyalty to us, signing that contract means his, very recently, widowed mum will never have to go without.

    I would do exactly the same.
    Yes I do blame him...what is it with people who naturally align to con artists and then reason that this is acceptable. 
    Jesus fucking christ.
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    The bloke didn't play one full game in his natural position and we are all writing him off. He went on loan to club in the division above and they are keen to sign him permanently - tells you quite a bit.

    Hopefully under a new manager in a different formation we can see some of the CK from his Crewe spell.
     His natural position seems 'Wide of the mark' rather than wide left though.  

    He settled so well he couldn't wait to leave...Why the hell he left the North and caused Charlton  to wate 500k only he can tell. It isn’t  going to work now no matter how much we wish otherwise. 
    100% correct. 👍
    Can you really blame him though?  He has no loyalty to us, signing that contract means his, very recently, widowed mum will never have to go without.

    I would do exactly the same.
    Yes I do blame him...what is it with people who naturally align to con artists and then reason that this is acceptable. 
    what planet are you on?
  • I fear the option to buy that was put in place for Kirk as part of the loan agreement with Blackpool means the Seasiders hold all the aces here and leaves a lot of the debate as to whether Kirk can be any good for us immaterial.

    For example, if they are able to just hold out to see if Josh Bowler is sold before deciding, it could be a long summer. Kirk may even return to us for pre÷season and then depart again. 

    Admittedly I write this without a full understanding of the option to buy agreement. i.e. is it time limited and if so,  crucially, for how long? 
  • Kips said:
    I fear the option to buy that was put in place for Kirk as part of the loan agreement with Blackpool means the Seasiders hold all the aces here and leaves a lot of the debate as to whether Kirk can be any good for us immaterial.

    For example, if they are able to just hold out to see if Josh Bowler is sold before deciding, it could be a long summer. Kirk may even return to us for pre÷season and then depart again. 

    Admittedly I write this without a full understanding of the option to buy agreement. i.e. is it time limited and if so,  crucially, for how long? 
    They haven't taken the option, like we haven't taken the option on Famewo.  Either deal could still be done on the "open market". 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Chunes said:
    wmcf123 said:
    I just don't see where he gets in.  We do not have the players to play in a 433 and that's the only system in which he can play.  
    What formation do we have the players for?
    At the moment, something without full backs
    Or center backs and one up top. 

    2-7-1?
    Mac
    Inniss - Lavelle
    DJ -  Clare - Dobson - JFC - Fraser - CBT
    Aneke
    Stockley

    What's sad about that is with a slightly different shape that's an 11 that Jackson might seriously have set out
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chunes said:
    wmcf123 said:
    I just don't see where he gets in.  We do not have the players to play in a 433 and that's the only system in which he can play.  
    What formation do we have the players for?
    Not ones that require midfield creativity/goalscoring or ones that use one striker . 
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Chunes said:
    wmcf123 said:
    I just don't see where he gets in.  We do not have the players to play in a 433 and that's the only system in which he can play.  
    What formation do we have the players for?
    At the moment, something without full backs
    Or center backs and one up top. 

    2-7-1?
    Mac
    Inniss - Lavelle
    DJ -  Clare - Dobson - JFC - Fraser - CBT
    Aneke
    Stockley

    What's sad about that is with a slightly different shape that's an 11 that Jackson might seriously have set out
    With the same results. If we are serious on a top two finish then only two or three of those players are good enough.
  • wmcf123 said:
    Chunes said:
    wmcf123 said:
    I just don't see where he gets in.  We do not have the players to play in a 433 and that's the only system in which he can play.  
    What formation do we have the players for?
    Not ones that require midfield creativity/goalscoring or ones that use one striker . 
    I think the point is that we don't have the players for any formation because we don't have many players. 
  • I think we could put out a reasonable 1-4-1
  • Kirk was completely underwhelming, of that there is little doubt.

    The upside is that for a new manager, Kirk is potentially an easy/quick win.  If Kirk starts to deliver, the new manager gets to demonstrate ability, making a difference.  If Kirk continues to flounder, the new manager won't be faulted.  If I'm the new gaffer I'd be tempted to give Kirk another try
  • Kirk was completely underwhelming, of that there is little doubt.

    The upside is that for a new manager, Kirk is potentially an easy/quick win.  If Kirk starts to deliver, the new manager gets to demonstrate ability, making a difference.  If Kirk continues to flounder, the new manager won't be faulted.  If I'm the new gaffer I'd be tempted to give Kirk another try
    Not if C B-T is available  for the same position. 
    Well, Kirk can  still step in after CB-T has done his hammy.


  • Sponsored links:


  • Got a feeling this will be one of those deals which will be completed on the final day of the window, after Blackpool finally sell someone to raise the money.
    'undisclosed'
  • Oggy Red said:
    Kirk was completely underwhelming, of that there is little doubt.

    The upside is that for a new manager, Kirk is potentially an easy/quick win.  If Kirk starts to deliver, the new manager gets to demonstrate ability, making a difference.  If Kirk continues to flounder, the new manager won't be faulted.  If I'm the new gaffer I'd be tempted to give Kirk another try
    Not if C B-T is available  for the same position. 
    Well, Kirk can  still step in after CB-T has done his hammy.


    And that's the problem, isn't it.  Two totally different players that happen to play in the same position.  You can't swap them in and out and not change anything else. 
  • edited May 2022
    Cafc43v3r said:
    Oggy Red said:
    Kirk was completely underwhelming, of that there is little doubt.

    The upside is that for a new manager, Kirk is potentially an easy/quick win.  If Kirk starts to deliver, the new manager gets to demonstrate ability, making a difference.  If Kirk continues to flounder, the new manager won't be faulted.  If I'm the new gaffer I'd be tempted to give Kirk another try
    Not if C B-T is available  for the same position. 
    Well, Kirk can  still step in after CB-T has done his hammy.


    And that's the problem, isn't it.  Two totally different players that happen to play in the same position.  You can't swap them in and out and not change anything else. 
    That's how it should be, I don't understand why it's a problem. Swapping like for like in each position just makes you boring, predictable and easy to defend/plan against. Swapping one LW for a different type of player is perfect. 
  • Got a feeling this will be one of those deals which will be completed on the final day of the window, after Blackpool finally sell someone to raise the money.
    Or we accept a 38 year goalkeeper that hasn’t played for 3 years in a straight swap.
  • Can we organise a whip round for Blackpool?
  • edited May 2022
    Got a feeling this will be one of those deals which will be completed on the final day of the window, after Blackpool finally sell someone to raise the money.
    If Jackson was still here I would agree

    But New manager, new formation, new Ideas

    I for one would love to see Kirk given Pre Season.

    If we can get the player Crewe had then that could be a key part to promotion, someone whipping balls in to Stockley 
    Not sure Kirk's biggest strength is his crossing. It's not bad by any means but we wouldn't get the most of him by forcing him out wide, taking on full backs and wing backs.

    We need to get the ball to his feet in and around the penalty areas and half spaces. He can use his intelligence to slide passes along the deck and have defenders facing their own goal line.

    It's why I think giving him a free role in behind the strikers wouldn't be the worst idea, if he can put on some muscle over the summer.




    All that said, I still expect him to be off before the season starts whether that's to Blackpool or elsewhere up north.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!