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

Lyle Taylor Undr the Cosh Podcast

Latimer
Latimer Posts: 944
edited December 2 in General Charlton

Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

Comments

  • Bedsaddick
    Bedsaddick Posts: 24,917
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    All excuses , Lies and deceit. Don’t give him the air time 🐍
  • Radostanradical
    Radostanradical Posts: 941
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would of stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
  • Diebythesword
    Diebythesword Posts: 433
    edited December 2
    Bowyer comes out well from it, told Taylor he’d have to publicly throw him under the bus and had no choice. 

    Yes Taylor could’ve got an injury and not ever got another lucrative contract but that’s the deal for footballers I’m afraid, that’s why you’re paid so much in the first place, your career is short and can be made even shorter by sheer bad luck. It’s the same reason contractors and freelancers are paid more than permanent staff. 
  • Bournesnr
    Bournesnr Posts: 301
    edited December 2
    Don’t understand why we are still discussing him, love or loathe him what’s done is done and by discussing it all we are doing is massaging his ego and providing him with more airtime.
  • lordromford
    lordromford Posts: 7,950
    edited December 2
    Radostanradical said:
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would have stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
    Yes, losing Gallagher was a big blow, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest we would’ve stayed up if Taylor had played the last few games seeing as we only got relegated by one point (Barnsley scoring a last minute winner against Brentford.) We either drew or lost by one goal in six of the nine games Taylor boycotted. One more goal across any of those games would’ve done it. And in these games we were playing with Bonne, Hemed and Davison as our best options up front.
    The idea that we wouldn’t have stayed up if Taylor had played is pretty far fetched if you ask me. 
  • Braziliance
    Braziliance Posts: 8,434
    My God how many times is he gonna speak about it on a podcast? It's almost becoming a parody now, like Froch talking about his fight with Groves at Wembley, at least that wasn't about being a fkn rat and achieving something though.

    He's a weasel, a rich one. Nothing to learn from him.
  • JustFloydRoad
    JustFloydRoad Posts: 1,809
    edited December 2
    Do we really need a thread about this? We might as well call it Lyle Taylor in the media


  • msomerton
    msomerton Posts: 3,060
    May be he wants to come back, so is trying to justify his actions.
  • Radostanradical
    Radostanradical Posts: 941
    lordromford said:
    Radostanradical said:
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would have stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
    Yes, losing Gallagher was a big blow, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest we would’ve stayed up if Taylor had played the last few games seeing as we only got relegated by one point (Barnsley scoring a last minute winner against Brentford.) We either drew or lost by one goal in six of the nine games Taylor boycotted. One more goal across any of those games would’ve done it. And in these games we were playing with Bonne, Hemed and Davison as our best options up front.
    The idea that we wouldn’t have stayed up if Taylor had played is pretty far fetched if you ask me. 

    This is the kind of pub‑logic that sounds convincing until you actually interrogate it. You’re essentially reducing a relegation battle — a complex, multi‑factor collapse over 46 games — to the fantasy that one striker magically adds “one more goal” and everything is solved. That’s not analysis, that’s wishful arithmetic.  

    First, the idea that Taylor’s presence guarantees points ignores the obvious: he wasn’t exactly prolific in the months before the shutdown. His form had dipped, his contract situation was toxic, and opposition managers had already worked him out. Pretending he would have waltzed back in and single‑handedly reversed six narrow defeats is the kind of simplistic thinking that belongs in playground debates, not serious football discussion.  

    Second, you conveniently gloss over the fact that the squad’s problems weren’t just up front. Gallagher leaving ripped the midfield apart, the defence was brittle, and Bowyer was juggling a threadbare squad. To claim Taylor alone was the difference between survival and relegation is to ignore the systemic rot that had already set in.  

    Finally, the “we only went down by one point” line is the most desperate crutch of all. Every relegated side can point to one‑goal margins and last‑minute winners elsewhere. That’s football. If you want to play the counterfactual game, you could equally argue that if Bonne had finished one sitter, or if Pearce hadn’t switched off once, we’d have stayed up. Singling out Taylor as the mythical saviour is not only far‑fetched — it’s intellectually lazy.  

    So yes, it is far‑fetched. In fact, it’s embarrassingly reductive. Relegation wasn’t about one man refusing to play; it was about a squad that wasn’t good enough, a club in chaos, and a season that unravelled long before those last nine games. Reducing it to “Taylor equals survival” is the kind of argument that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. 
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,527
    edited December 2
    Radostanradical said:
    lordromford said:
    Radostanradical said:
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would have stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
    Yes, losing Gallagher was a big blow, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest we would’ve stayed up if Taylor had played the last few games seeing as we only got relegated by one point (Barnsley scoring a last minute winner against Brentford.) We either drew or lost by one goal in six of the nine games Taylor boycotted. One more goal across any of those games would’ve done it. And in these games we were playing with Bonne, Hemed and Davison as our best options up front.
    The idea that we wouldn’t have stayed up if Taylor had played is pretty far fetched if you ask me. 

    This is the kind of pub‑logic that sounds convincing until you actually interrogate it. You’re essentially reducing a relegation battle — a complex, multi‑factor collapse over 46 games — to the fantasy that one striker magically adds “one more goal” and everything is solved. That’s not analysis, that’s wishful arithmetic.  
    The em dashes and sentence syntax are both a dead giveaway.

  • Sponsored links:



  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,292
    Radostanradical said:
    lordromford said:
    Radostanradical said:
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would have stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
    Yes, losing Gallagher was a big blow, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest we would’ve stayed up if Taylor had played the last few games seeing as we only got relegated by one point (Barnsley scoring a last minute winner against Brentford.) We either drew or lost by one goal in six of the nine games Taylor boycotted. One more goal across any of those games would’ve done it. And in these games we were playing with Bonne, Hemed and Davison as our best options up front.
    The idea that we wouldn’t have stayed up if Taylor had played is pretty far fetched if you ask me. 

    This is the kind of pub‑logic that sounds convincing until you actually interrogate it. You’re essentially reducing a relegation battle — a complex, multi‑factor collapse over 46 games — to the fantasy that one striker magically adds “one more goal” and everything is solved. That’s not analysis, that’s wishful arithmetic.  

    First, the idea that Taylor’s presence guarantees points ignores the obvious: he wasn’t exactly prolific in the months before the shutdown. His form had dipped, his contract situation was toxic, and opposition managers had already worked him out. Pretending he would have waltzed back in and single‑handedly reversed six narrow defeats is the kind of simplistic thinking that belongs in playground debates, not serious football discussion.  

    Second, you conveniently gloss over the fact that the squad’s problems weren’t just up front. Gallagher leaving ripped the midfield apart, the defence was brittle, and Bowyer was juggling a threadbare squad. To claim Taylor alone was the difference between survival and relegation is to ignore the systemic rot that had already set in.  

    Finally, the “we only went down by one point” line is the most desperate crutch of all. Every relegated side can point to one‑goal margins and last‑minute winners elsewhere. That’s football. If you want to play the counterfactual game, you could equally argue that if Bonne had finished one sitter, or if Pearce hadn’t switched off once, we’d have stayed up. Singling out Taylor as the mythical saviour is not only far‑fetched — it’s intellectually lazy.  

    So yes, it is far‑fetched. In fact, it’s embarrassingly reductive. Relegation wasn’t about one man refusing to play; it was about a squad that wasn’t good enough, a club in chaos, and a season that unravelled long before those last nine games. Reducing it to “Taylor equals survival” is the kind of argument that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. 
    In your opinion.

    I happen to agree with Lordromford.

    In my opinion, which is in every way as valid as yours, the balance of probabilty in a season where Taylor had scored eleven goals in twenty-two games was that he would have scored at least one goal in the six games where it would have made a difference.    
  • Talal
    Talal Posts: 11,551
    Another thread for him? You can bet he searches his name anywhere and everywhere so will be creaming himself at this.
  • Radostanradical
    Radostanradical Posts: 941
    Chunes said:
    Radostanradical said:
    lordromford said:
    Radostanradical said:
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would have stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
    Yes, losing Gallagher was a big blow, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest we would’ve stayed up if Taylor had played the last few games seeing as we only got relegated by one point (Barnsley scoring a last minute winner against Brentford.) We either drew or lost by one goal in six of the nine games Taylor boycotted. One more goal across any of those games would’ve done it. And in these games we were playing with Bonne, Hemed and Davison as our best options up front.
    The idea that we wouldn’t have stayed up if Taylor had played is pretty far fetched if you ask me. 

    This is the kind of pub‑logic that sounds convincing until you actually interrogate it. You’re essentially reducing a relegation battle — a complex, multi‑factor collapse over 46 games — to the fantasy that one striker magically adds “one more goal” and everything is solved. That’s not analysis, that’s wishful arithmetic.  
    The em dashes and sentence syntax are both a dead giveaway.
    You are right im an intellectual fraud, I use AI.
  • Radostanradical
    Radostanradical Posts: 941
    Algarveaddick said:
    Radostanradical said:
    lordromford said:
    Radostanradical said:
    Latimer said:

    Does he set the record straight on his last days at CAFC?

    He sets out exactly what we all knew, he made a selfish decision based on the circumstances at the time, I understand why he did it but dont agree with his decision. For what its worth i think everyone saying we would have stayed up had he played is recising history a tad, losing Gallagher was a much bigger lose. One point he does raise whicch is fair the hypocrisy around other players who refused to play but dint get criticised to the same degree.
    Yes, losing Gallagher was a big blow, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest we would’ve stayed up if Taylor had played the last few games seeing as we only got relegated by one point (Barnsley scoring a last minute winner against Brentford.) We either drew or lost by one goal in six of the nine games Taylor boycotted. One more goal across any of those games would’ve done it. And in these games we were playing with Bonne, Hemed and Davison as our best options up front.
    The idea that we wouldn’t have stayed up if Taylor had played is pretty far fetched if you ask me. 

    This is the kind of pub‑logic that sounds convincing until you actually interrogate it. You’re essentially reducing a relegation battle — a complex, multi‑factor collapse over 46 games — to the fantasy that one striker magically adds “one more goal” and everything is solved. That’s not analysis, that’s wishful arithmetic.  

    First, the idea that Taylor’s presence guarantees points ignores the obvious: he wasn’t exactly prolific in the months before the shutdown. His form had dipped, his contract situation was toxic, and opposition managers had already worked him out. Pretending he would have waltzed back in and single‑handedly reversed six narrow defeats is the kind of simplistic thinking that belongs in playground debates, not serious football discussion.  

    Second, you conveniently gloss over the fact that the squad’s problems weren’t just up front. Gallagher leaving ripped the midfield apart, the defence was brittle, and Bowyer was juggling a threadbare squad. To claim Taylor alone was the difference between survival and relegation is to ignore the systemic rot that had already set in.  

    Finally, the “we only went down by one point” line is the most desperate crutch of all. Every relegated side can point to one‑goal margins and last‑minute winners elsewhere. That’s football. If you want to play the counterfactual game, you could equally argue that if Bonne had finished one sitter, or if Pearce hadn’t switched off once, we’d have stayed up. Singling out Taylor as the mythical saviour is not only far‑fetched — it’s intellectually lazy.  

    So yes, it is far‑fetched. In fact, it’s embarrassingly reductive. Relegation wasn’t about one man refusing to play; it was about a squad that wasn’t good enough, a club in chaos, and a season that unravelled long before those last nine games. Reducing it to “Taylor equals survival” is the kind of argument that collapses under the slightest scrutiny. 
    In your opinion.

    I happen to agree with Lordromford.

    In my opinion, which is in every way as valid as yours, the balance of probabilty in a season where Taylor had scored eleven goals in twenty-two games was that he would have scored at least one goal in the six games where it would have made a difference.    
    And how many of those goals were penalties? Also whilst not saying your opinion is invalid, not all opinions are valid as each other.
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,878
    Talal said:
    Another thread for him? You can bet he searches his name anywhere and everywhere so will be creaming himself at this.
    Agree. Why is this arsehole even being discussed? 
  • aliwibble
    aliwibble Posts: 26,969
    Closing this as we've already got a thread on him over here
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

“Marketplace”