The curious case of Jake Forster-Caskey

 

Why is Jake Forster-Caskey not getting more of a chance in the first team? It's a question that has being asked increasingly since the season began. 

In a side that has struggled in midfield at times, it seems odd that a player who was a shining light when fit previously and who should be at his prime at 28 years old, is now playing largely in the stiffs. 

Rumours have abounded that he has a contractual clause that triggers a wage increase after so many appearances and that this is being managed to keep costs down. 

You hear these things around the game and I am usually quite sceptical primarily because it makes little sense for a club not to use an important asset purely to save what is typically small beer in the scheme of total playing budgets (figures being touted suggest a difference of maybe £1500 a week). It usually sounds more to me like fans trying to explain or justify a playing situation they don't understand or can't reconcile. If it's at the top of the game and the player has not been performing, then I could maybe get it, but at our level it doesn't add up. Unless of course, the financial situation is so dire it is dominating the playing side of the business.

Interesting then that a Tweet today from someone who claims to be a disgruntled employee putting a bit of detail on the story. They could be muck-raking, of course, but their previous Tweets have had substance, so you have to ask yourself a question. The Club could have moved to quash this but are more likely to say that they "do not comment on commercially sensitive personal matters." Jake himself obviously has a position on it and could also settle it but perhaps he risks breaking his contract and facing dismissal?

He has made five first-team appearances so far, in two League Cup games and three EFL Trophy matches, and appears to be clear of the cruciate ligament injury that ruled him out last season.

Being a cynical old git, I do wonder if his contract extension was part of a Summer rebuild designed to look more substantial than it really was? If it's true that his new deal agreed a clause allowing them to keep his money down by not using him, that really would be disingenuous and shabby.