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.
Your missing the most important part, you can't force him to accept a pay off anyway!
But maybe we can take this to the chuks thread to have the same circular argument for the 127th time.
Also paying a lump sum up front you can negotiate, knowing he might be able to pick up a wage elsewhere once he's released so he's not out of pocket.
Also the paying it up front means it's not going towards the wage bill anymore so yes you can then spend that on wages, think of it more like paying a signing on fee or a transfer fee
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.
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.
Your missing the most important part, you can't force him to accept a pay off anyway!
But maybe we can take this to the chuks thread to have the same circular argument for the 127th time.
100% you can im sure there would be a clause as in all contracts to terminate early and pay any wages owed.
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???
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.
But you are happy to take it out of Chuk family's because you hypothetically want to save a business owned by very wealthy people money?
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.
But you are happy to take it out of Chuk family's because you hypothetically want to save a business owned by very wealthy people money?
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???
Having the same argument with multiple people i have explained this in previous post to someone else in more detail.
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.
If we insure him, maybe we are due some money back.
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.
But you are happy to take it out of Chuk family's because you hypothetically want to save a business owned by very wealthy people money?
Very weird takeaway since im not saying that. im making the argument you save money by paying Chuks everything he is owed and you forecast the debt in to wage budget to be recouped over season or 2.
Regardless what club decides to do they should pay Chuks everything he is owed. Its not his fault someone offered him a silly contract.
Derby are in for Michael Smith from Sheffield Wednesday. I think he’d be an ideal partner for May and is proven at this level
Would be a bit weird if 2 seasons running he got a club promoted to the Championship (Rotherham and Wednesday) then immediately left for another Championship team. An excellent L1 player though, and as you say perfect alongside May.
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 your 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.
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
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.
What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
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.
Chuks has had a lot of injuries, exacerbated by us not having enough players up front and forcing him back in before he's ready. He's very injury-prone. It's completely factually incorrect to say he cannot play though. He's still able to, we just have to get him through his injuries. That might not be possible and he may be getting more and more likely to get hurt, we'll see, but if we have enough strikers and can focus on getting Chuks fit enough to play 20/25 minutes in a game like he did at Birmingham then it might be a different story. He played 18 times for them, made one start. No injuries. We then signed him, started him in 4 consecutive games and broke him. I don't know exactly what his injury situation is but this whole budget chat is coming from a false starting position saying that Chuks is an 'asset' unable to play when it's just not accurate.
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.”
Comments
But maybe we can take this to the chuks thread to have the same circular argument for the 127th time.
Also the paying it up front means it's not going towards the wage bill anymore so yes you can then spend that on wages, think of it more like paying a signing on fee or a transfer fee
Holden also spoke about how he broke his leg three times, so can fully sympathise with him
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.
Regardless what club decides to do they should pay Chuks everything he is owed. Its not his fault someone offered him a silly contract.
Every time I come onto CL, can guarantee they’ll be another 50 odd posts on this thread and absolutely no Rumours!
Are we still talking about formations and need an additional Striker?
Oh yes, and Chuks as well!
You have two more assets who cost money yes agreed but your 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.
Source: me making shit up as I'm bored with the Aneke chat
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.
What this boils down to is if the club see value in chuks ability on the pitch.
Once had an insane fromt 3 of him, Bergkamp and Salas in Champ manager 98 back in the day.
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.