Venice was very nice, thank you for asking. I go away for a bit, and return to find that Charlton have suddenly discovered their shooting boots, not to mention a preponderance to play 4-4-2, and for most of that time without Shelvey. Why do I single out our wunderkind for mention?
Back at the paint pot game against Southampton, I mentioned in a posting, that in order to acquire strikers to aid the ailing Deon, or indeed for additional players in other positions, we may well have to sell one of our prized assets, in order to raise the money for transfer fees and wages. For me that realistically meant Shelvey, as our most saleable asset, in a midfield that admittedly has a few saleable assets. This opinion brought about the anonymous response below, and it is a subject worth considering further, as the one thing all Charlton fans do know, is that we will sell Shelvey, the only question is when.
If you're talking about money to help the club as a whole, a few million for Shelvey won't change much. After the board's injection we're holding out for a takeover which is the only thing that can realistically help the club's finances.
I totally agree with this statement, and no I wasn't talking about money to help the club as a whole. If we don't get promoted, and have no buyer by the end of this season, and the board decide to put no more money in, then anything with a pulse, (optional), will be sold in the summer, because that is the only way Charlton could survive.
If you're talking about money for other transfers that's ridiculous because there's obviously not a hope in hell that we'd be able to bring in replacements near the quality of Shelvey.
Here I disagree. Shelvey will be very good, we can all see that, but he is obviously not the finished article yet, and I would argue that he hasn't really been a major influence on team performance, other than enforcing a 4-5-1 / 4-4-1-1 when he was ever present at the start of the season. While that worked, all was fine, but as soon as teams started to work us out, the performances of both the team, and Shelvey particularly fell off the wall a bit. Plan B, or 4-4-2, was introduced, with a good rate of return, and Shelvey has become a marginal player as a result. Will he come back?, of course he will, but are Charlton in danger of fashioning a style of play, and team formation around him, when the reality is, that he will not be with us in the medium term?
My point is that we are closing in on halfway through the season, the January transfer window is less than a month away, and I have to believe that Parkinson would want to bolster a very thin, (in terms of numbers), squad. If Mooney and Sodje Jnr are the answer to the strike force issues, then transfer fees would be involved, albeit that in the case of Sodje, it should be small, given that he is in the last year of his contract. I suspect that any sale of Dickson, and Fleetwood, even if it is possible, which is debatable would not cover the amount needed to bring in Mooney and Sodje Jnr on a permanent basis. That might change if McLeod can be moved on, but a meaningful transfer fee would be unlikely, albeit that there would be some meaningful relief to the wage bill.
Add the need for a second senior keeper, again assuming that we can get Randolph away, and the need for a pot of money potentially gets bigger. If you then add in a central defender / right back to boost the cover in that department, and a left sided midfielder, as both McKenzie and Holden do not seem to be the answer in Parkinson's eyes, then would the sacrifice of Shelvey be warranted, if it gave Charlton a better chance of escaping the third division at the first time of asking? The situation reminds me a little of the sale of Robert Lee to Newcastle, for what all parties recognised at the time was a steal. As we know, the sale happened to get us back to The Valley. I wonder if Charlton will be prepared to sacrifice Shelvey for the greater good, albeit as Richard Murray has said, it would have to be "for silly money"