Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Lyle Taylor - August 2025 signed for Chelmsford City (p295)
Comments
-
I don't understand why Taylor gets so much airtime. He was a good League 1 footballer and had maybe half a season of being good in the championship. Why does anyone in the wider public care?3
-
For two reasons, one because it would have become a public slanging match and made it impossible for him to return in the sort of capacity he is now. But also because LB had indicated to him that he wasn't wanted by (1) not picking him for six months and (2) not offering him a new contract. And as I've pointed out this question is irrelevant because he wasn't needed for the three games he was under contract for - we did not concede a goal and picked up seven points.se9addick said:
Right, but that’s not really answering my question. If he was never going to play why didn’t he return? Is it because he was worried that he would pick up an injury in training?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
LB just chose to lump Solly and Davis in with Taylor because it suited his agenda - on the one hand for that siege mentality and on the other because he could not lose by throwing them all under the bus together. Far better to say that I've lost three of my squad than one. What a hero in keeping us, has he done so with not one but three refusing to play when, in reality, Taylor was the only one that was ever going to be picked.
Seriously, as I've already said, I do not understand why Solly is the bad guy here. The Club clearly don't think so because finding an age group coach is hardly the most difficult thing to do. We simply did not have to re-hire him but did it because he was, effectively, a one club man (20 years prior to being released) who gets Charlton and we want our youngsters to see that. I know that doesn't suit some fans' narrative but those are the facts.
2 -
Was Taylor actually treated in a “terrible way” by the club?Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%0 -
Yes, listen to the podcast. He was told he was going to be sold to Brentford and the price kept changing on transfer deadline day when he was actually in brentford waiting to sign. Whilst some may say its a lie, i happen to know 100% that actually happened.se9addick said:
Was Taylor actually treated in a “terrible way” by the club?Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%0 -
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
2 -
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".2 -
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.2 -
To (try!) and put this to bed - He offered and was willing to play out the remainder of his contract, albeit not beyond. That offer was not accepted by LB and that was the end of it.se9addick said:
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
A very different situation to Lyle's.
13 -
So Lee Bowyer lied about Solly? Has this ever been reported anywhere?Ollywozere said:
To (try!) and put this to bed - He offered and was willing to play out the remainder of his contract, albeit not beyond. That offer was not accepted by LB and that was the end of it.se9addick said:
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
A very different situation to Lyle's.1 -
Yes mate it was front page of CNN for about seven weeksRadostanradical said:
So Lee Bowyer lied about Solly? Has this ever been reported anywhere?Ollywozere said:
To (try!) and put this to bed - He offered and was willing to play out the remainder of his contract, albeit not beyond. That offer was not accepted by LB and that was the end of it.se9addick said:
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
A very different situation to Lyle's.
13 -
Sponsored links:
-
Meh0
-
I'm guessing this out of all the current players (who haven't retired). He doesn't even touch all time hatred imo.
You have to remember he was Milwall youth (so it isn't like he was our own to begin with).
Most hated players of 2020s (there is a conversation), but that is the most amount of hatred we have of him.
Article if your interested: https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/flyle-taylor-soured-charlton-athletic-stint-with-selfishness/1 -
Ah I see, that does make the situation different. Thanks, that’s useful additional context that I wasn’t aware of.Ollywozere said:
To (try!) and put this to bed - He offered and was willing to play out the remainder of his contract, albeit not beyond. That offer was not accepted by LB and that was the end of it.se9addick said:
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
A very different situation to Lyle's.1 -
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?5 -
Forgetting the nuances, and what went before. The bottom line is that Taylor playing would have kept us up.
It's quite possible he would have scored in the 0-0 at Cardiff when he was still under contract but refused to play, which we now know would have been enough (butterfly effect accepted) to avoid relegation. He now says a £10k insurance policy - presumably against future earnings - would have seen him play the 3+6 games we needed him for. Imagine if he had come out publicly at the time. Explained exactly how much difference it would make to the rest of his life getting this relatively huge contract at the age of thirty, having been a lower league player most of his career and now looking towards the end of that career. I think there would have been far more sympathy for his position had he laid out the bare facts for all to see and explained that there was a way that he could play and be secure should a career ending injury occur.
Now, that said, of course it was during the pandemic. Many people who otherwise may have contributed to a crowdfunder (as suggested by Weegie) for the insurance policy would have been in a precarious financial position. Though I still think Weegie is right, and our fans could have covered it. You could also argue that the club should have found a way to pay regardless, or indeed, as (unlike many) Taylor had been paid throughout the pandemic and as it was his future, he was insuring himself against guaranteed future earnings, so he was in a win/win situation, surely?
He was the only one of the three players mentioned who would realisitically been in the team and the only one who would have, "single handedly", been able to keep CAFC in the Championship.0 -
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?1 -
Not just because they aren't getting in the team but because they had no future as a player at the Club. And he agreed to play those final three games too but we didn't need him anyway.se9addick said:
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".0 -
Christ almighty.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?7 -
Talk about being so far up your own backside.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?
You refuse to accept the word of someone very close to the Club because the information he is passing on isn't in the public domain. Equally you say that "the difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia" so why do you think the Club re-employed such a wrong'un.
3 -
Donald Trump being a fine example of that very phenomena.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?3 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think most people understand why Taylor did it, in the same way most people understand why a crack addled, unemployed drunk, breaks into a house to nick stuff so they can afford their next high. Understanding the reason people make a decision doesn't make it ethically or morally the right decision to make.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%5 -
I have literally answered that.Addick Addict said:
Talk about being so far up your own backside.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?
You refuse to accept the word of someone very close to the Club because the information he is passing on isn't in the public domain. Equally you say that "the difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia" so why do you think the Club re-employed such a wrong'un.
The only reason I struggle is because the person was an employee of the club but actually involved with footballing side IMO, the individual also has my respect for a lot of things they did for the club, I do not bekieve they are lying however when the actual manager of the club has said the opposite itndoes beg the question of who isnmore likley to be correct? Especially since solly has never publicly denied it? Its purely logical, have you ever stopped to consider why others may be so sure of Sollys position at the time?2 -
Only marginally. That means he offered to play 3 games. But refused to play the next 5(?) because they were past the date of his contract I assume. It's better than Taylor but still very poor form (especially for a club captain), when the utterly over whelming majority of players carried on to the end of the season.se9addick said:
Ah I see, that does make the situation different. Thanks, that’s useful additional context that I wasn’t aware of.Ollywozere said:
To (try!) and put this to bed - He offered and was willing to play out the remainder of his contract, albeit not beyond. That offer was not accepted by LB and that was the end of it.se9addick said:
Your defence of Solly is admirable, but I’m not sure I really agree that there’s ever a justification for a player deciding that they’ll down tools and stop playing for the club despite being under contract because they aren’t getting in the team. Not sure that’s a great precedent to set, especially from the club captain.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
A very different situation to Lyle's.
With Solly, I thought at the time and still do that it was a very poor personal decision as it has tainted him ever since, and, as said on here many times over, he didn't even need to make the decision as he wouldn't have played.1 -
What did Bowyer actually say about Solly? Been a long time and I can't remember exactly.0
-
Please dont call me that.Chunes said:
Christ almighty.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?0 -
Just a tip for you in future. If you’re going to brag about your intelligence it might be worth proof reading your posts in future so they aren’t full of typos. It doesn’t help your argumentRadostanradical said:
I have literally answered that.Addick Addict said:
Talk about being so far up your own backside.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?
You refuse to accept the word of someone very close to the Club because the information he is passing on isn't in the public domain. Equally you say that "the difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia" so why do you think the Club re-employed such a wrong'un.
The only reason I struggle is because the person was an employee of the club but actually involved with footballing side IMO, the individual also has my respect for a lot of things they did for the club, I do not bekieve they are lying however when the actual manager of the club has said the opposite itndoes beg the question of who isnmore likley to be correct? Especially since solly has never publicly denied it? Its purely logical, have you ever stopped to consider why others may be so sure of Sollys position at the time?3 -
Catching up with the last few pages it’s like some bald men fighting over a comb.9
-
Lol when individuals point out spelling mistakes its a sign one is out of their depth.fenaddick said:
Just a tip for you in future. If you’re going to brag about your intelligence it might be worth proof reading your posts in future so they aren’t full of typos. It doesn’t help your argumentRadostanradical said:
I have literally answered that.Addick Addict said:
Talk about being so far up your own backside.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?
You refuse to accept the word of someone very close to the Club because the information he is passing on isn't in the public domain. Equally you say that "the difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia" so why do you think the Club re-employed such a wrong'un.
The only reason I struggle is because the person was an employee of the club but actually involved with footballing side IMO, the individual also has my respect for a lot of things they did for the club, I do not bekieve they are lying however when the actual manager of the club has said the opposite itndoes beg the question of who isnmore likley to be correct? Especially since solly has never publicly denied it? Its purely logical, have you ever stopped to consider why others may be so sure of Sollys position at the time?1 -
I normally don’t care, I make typos too. I just don’t also feel the need to brag about how intelligent I amRadostanradical said:
Lol when individuals point out spelling mistakes its a sign one is out of their depth.fenaddick said:
Just a tip for you in future. If you’re going to brag about your intelligence it might be worth proof reading your posts in future so they aren’t full of typos. It doesn’t help your argumentRadostanradical said:
I have literally answered that.Addick Addict said:
Talk about being so far up your own backside.Radostanradical said:
Arrogance is just side-effect of extreme intelligence, so you are probably right.Addick Addict said:
You really are an arrogant so and so aren't you. Funny how you don't criticise Davis isn't it when Solly would have been as much use as him.Radostanradical said:
So you admit there was even less reason for Solly to refuse to play yet he still did? I think you are very wide of the mark with your aspertions.Addick Addict said:
You really do seem to have a problem with players that are perceived as "one of our own". We've seen it with Mitchell, we've seen it with Leaburn and we're now seeing it with Solly. Yet a mercenary like Taylor is treated on a level playing field.Radostanradical said:
Mostly because what you say is not facts, there are some states coupled with opinion, its makes the whole thing even more bizarre? Why would Solly refuse to play if he knew he wasnt going to anyway?Addick Addict said:
Can we put this to bed once and for all?se9addick said:If Solly was willing to play if needed, why didn’t he return? Fear of injury in training?
Solly was never going to be picked by LB. He hadn't been selected in the previous six months and was told he wasn't good enough to be offered a new contract even if we went down. In the games that Solly refused to play post covid and when under contract, we did not concede a single goal. We beat both Hull and QPR 1-0 and drew with Cardiff 0-0. We didn't need him for those games. That season we won, in total, three of the 15 games Solly started. So how, exactly, was he going to improve the side?
Solly was thrown under the bus because it suited LB to do so, along with Davis, as he wanted to create a "them and us" siege mentality. Yet not one person ever calls Davis out, do they? Solly might have been Club captain but LB didn't think he was good enough as proven by us not offering him a new contract and the very next season he was playing in the Conference.
That is why he is back with us a coach. Because it suited the narrative at the time to make him a scapegoat. And yet, the one who really did hurt us, Taylor, was forgiven in a nanosecond by LB who then signed him when manager at another club.
I find it really strange that fans struggle with all the facts before them when the Club, who know absolutely everything that went on, welcomed Solly back with open arms as a coach. I just don't get that. There are far more serious things in life going on than venting ones spleen on someone who wasn't wanted by us at the time, despite the message that LB wanted to convey at that time, anyway.
Dress it up however you like but people are more forgiving to Solly because "he is one of our own" as oppossed to Taylor who actually sets out the terrible way he was treatrd by the club. Do i agree with Taylor refusing to play ? No not in a million years, Do i understand it ? 100%
Which of those three games would you have picked Taylor for and which of those would you have selected Solly for? Solly hadn't been picked for six months and wasn't going to be offered a new contract even if we went down whereas Taylor would have been picked, was a vital cog and would have been offered a new contract.
That argument has zero to do with him being "one of our own" but Solly's commitment to Charlton Athletic Football Club for 20 years plus is the very reason why we have invited him back as a coach. But he is very much "one of our own".
None of my criticisms of those players have anything to do with being homegrown (Leaburn of course only being in aour academy for a year or two), in fact my comments re Mitchell have to do with the fact that so far bar a season with St Johnstone, he hasnt translated the potential many deemed him to have at youth level to senior. So in fact my comments re Mitchell are on the contrary that where he has been going it hasnt worked out so why would we bring him back to play for us at a higher level. Then of course with Leaburn my comments were that I felt Kanu was ahead of him last and we shpuld of kept Kanu at the club, Kanu of course being an academy product. So one guesses that even if you went to a state comprehensive you can figure out a logical problem with that argument but its fine I accept ( your assummed) retraction and apology.Let’s not rewrite history to suit the narrative. Both Solly and Taylor refused to play when football resumed after COVID. The difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia and loyalty, while Taylor’s gets dragged through the mud. Same action, different reaction — and the only variable is sentimentality.If refusing to play was such a cardinal sin, then Solly’s two decades of service don’t magically absolve him. Commitment isn’t measured by how many years you’ve been on the payroll, it’s measured by what you do when the club needs you most. On that front, both men walked away.So forgive Solly if you like, but don’t pretend it’s because he behaved differently. He didn’t. The only reason he’s shielded from criticism is because fans can’t separate affection from accountability. That’s not loyalty — that’s bias dressed up as principle.Also Taylor would have been offered a contract? Who by Matt Southall and ESI ? Im sure you understand the problem there.
Now repeat that all back so I know you understood it.
Given you think Solly is of equal standing as Taylor, why do you think the Club has re-employed him?
As for Davis, he is such a non-entity he isnt really worth debating is he? Now how about you actually respond to my points.
As for your point re Solly, because he is "one of our own", I feel I have been really clear about that? You are actually reading my posts right? Not just reading what you want me to say?
You refuse to accept the word of someone very close to the Club because the information he is passing on isn't in the public domain. Equally you say that "the difference is that people wrap Solly’s decision in a warm blanket of nostalgia" so why do you think the Club re-employed such a wrong'un.
The only reason I struggle is because the person was an employee of the club but actually involved with footballing side IMO, the individual also has my respect for a lot of things they did for the club, I do not bekieve they are lying however when the actual manager of the club has said the opposite itndoes beg the question of who isnmore likley to be correct? Especially since solly has never publicly denied it? Its purely logical, have you ever stopped to consider why others may be so sure of Sollys position at the time?3 -
Feels like groundhog day this. The Lyle Taylor situation somehow comes up again > Charlton fans are still upset > Radostanradical disagrees and wants everyone to know > argument ensues > Radostanradical starts trolling > someone bites > argument eventually ends until Lyle Taylor somehow comes up again. I'm amazed people are still getting sucked in. There's not going to be agreement at the end of this, better if everyone just moves on.3
