Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
And that’s the crux of it. Solly would have been a respected member of the dressing room. Whilst his better playing days are long gone, he could have stuck around and been part of the group - a group that needed everybody to pull together On and off the pitch. We all know he would have been released at the end of the season (purely to not being up to it anymore). But he should have remained loyal - just as the club remained loyal to him for 10 years (or however long it was).
I imagine it was simpler than the suggestions so far. From what I've read, it seems its common practice for clubs to pay players for the month after their contract expires. With the club's lack of funds and senior management, could it be that the club was unwilling/unable to pay the extra month, which Solly probably thought he deserved after more than a decade of service. Would have been a 5 figures sum, so hard to just shake off the lose.
Would you feel like putting your body on the line for a company that you'd worked for for over a decade who decided to break industry standard payments and without money you were not only expecting, but felt you deserved?
I appreciate you put it across as a theory but there's no proof to say the club were not willing to pay Solly and deny him a 5 figure sum. In fact even throughout the darkest days in recent times at the club I can't recall once seeing any rumours of wages not being paid at all.
So yes I would be putting my body on the line for a company that i'd worked for for over a decade who had always paid my wages. If you would even consider not doing so then a good long hard look in the mirror would be needed. Why you ask? because it's your job and what you are paid to do.
In the cold light of day, I think he was unfortunate that Taylor also refused to play. Had Taylor played, scored one or two, and we'd stayed up, I think people's attitude towards Solly, would be something along the lines of " shame he had to end his Charlton career in that way, but can't really blame him as he was very unlikely to play and he chose not to take a pointless risk" I think we also need to remember his loyalty over many seasons. There was a time at his peak when he was highly sought after and West Ham were rumoured to be after him. He never pushed for a move, as far as I'm aware.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
So you take the first point I made without acknowledging the additional one that he might have been less inclined to take what could have been a substantial risk due to his injury issues.
I have seen him play more games than we were told he should to help us out. He has been a great servant for 10+ years and he is owed a bit of understanding. At least not to hang him before we know all the facts.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
So you take the first point I made without acknowledging the additional one that he might have been less inclined to take what could have been a substantial risk due to his injury issues.
I have seen him play more games than we were told he should to help us out. He has been a great servant for 10+ years and he is owed a bit of understanding. At least not to hang him before we know all the facts.
If his rationale for sitting out was that he wanted to avoid injury stopping him getting another club it hasn’t proved a particularly successful strategy given that he has no club as we speak!
He’s had six months to come out with the facts. Given that information leaks from this football club like a sieve I’m pretty sure that, if there was a good reason for him snaking us, it would have come out by now.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games. There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Solly would have been picked anyway - LB had to included him along with Taylor and Davis to emphasise the point that he was minus three players. And yet I haven't heard one person moan about Davis not seeing out his loan period.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games. There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Solly would have been picked anyway - LB had to included him along with Taylor and Davis to emphasise the point that he was minus three players. And yet I haven't heard one person moan about Davis not seeing out his loan period.
As you will be aware from reading the thread as a whole I am supportive of Chris Solly.
That said you cannot apply the same standards to a loan player (Davis) as you would your own when it comes to loyalty.
That's one reason I have the highest regard for Josh Cullen and Sam Field.
In the cold light of day, I think he was unfortunate that Taylor also refused to play. Had Taylor played, scored one or two, and we'd stayed up, I think people's attitude towards Solly, would be something along the lines of " shame he had to end his Charlton career in that way, but can't really blame him as he was very unlikely to play and he chose not to take a pointless risk" I think we also need to remember his loyalty over many seasons. There was a time at his peak when he was highly sought after and West Ham were rumoured to be after him. He never pushed for a move, as far as I'm aware.
Im not sure he would have passed a medical anywhere anyway.
I think we can safely assume to some extent without knowing the details that the reason Solly decided not to continue at Charlton is likely to be mental health related in some aspect or another because otherwise we probably would have heard the story by now.
I‘m sure that we all wish him well at least health-wise and hope that he continues his career or has a good retirement!
What was the situation with his knee, was it getting worse ? Could it be that he wasn't capable of playing a full game because of problems recovering the following week & this is one of the reasons why he wasn't offered a new contract. If he has been putting his future health at risk to such a degree that he wasn't offered a contract but LB wanted him to commit to the last 9 or 3 games perhaps it's not surprising that he said sorry but I'm not going to risk long term damage to my knee. I do understand of course he was still under contract for 3 games but by not offering him a new contract the club have effectively ended his career as he presumably wouldn't pass a fitness test & I'm sure apart from anything else his mind would have been all over the place worrying about the financial security of his young family who knows how it affected him ? Who can say that they possibly wouldn't have done the same thing.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games. There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Solly would have been picked anyway - LB had to included him along with Taylor and Davis to emphasise the point that he was minus three players. And yet I haven't heard one person moan about Davis not seeing out his loan period.
As you will be aware from reading the thread as a whole I am supportive of Chris Solly.
That said you cannot apply the same standards to a loan player (Davis) as you would your own when it comes to loyalty.
That's one reason I have the highest regard for Josh Cullen and Sam Field.
Sorry Len but the argument that keeps coming up is that Taylor and Solly were contractually obliged to play for us. Davis is no different in that respect. He signed a contract to play for us up to and including the last day of the loan agreement which was 30th June and he did not fulfil that obligation.
As I say, no one mentions Davis because it's easier to throw darts at someone who gave us a decade of service and yet, at then end of the day, would not have helped us one bit in those three games. Neither Davis nor Solly would probably have been selected anyway and as if to emphasise that point they haven't kicked a ball since this season. But, again, too many are suggesting that Solly would have been our saviour. He wouldn't.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games.
Matthews was injured and it simply made more sense to play a right back at right back.
I don't care that we scraped through it with what we had. The club captain should have been available to play in his preferred position at that time.
Given your comment "he might well have caused us to concede" I'll respond with "he might well have allowed players to get forward more instead of worrying that the defensive three would be overrun" It was Cardiff that Matthews missed, the only game that we failed to score in of the three and we were forced to play 3-4-3 as we didn't have trustworthy enough options to not play 3 centre backs. Either or both could have occurred.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games. There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Solly would have been picked anyway - LB had to included him along with Taylor and Davis to emphasise the point that he was minus three players. And yet I haven't heard one person moan about Davis not seeing out his loan period.
As you will be aware from reading the thread as a whole I am supportive of Chris Solly.
That said you cannot apply the same standards to a loan player (Davis) as you would your own when it comes to loyalty.
That's one reason I have the highest regard for Josh Cullen and Sam Field.
Sorry Len but the argument that keeps coming up is that Taylor and Solly were contractually obliged to play for us. Davis is no different in that respect. He signed a contract to play for us up to and including the last day of the loan agreement which was 30th June and he did not fulfil that obligation.
As I say, no one mentions Davis because it's easier to throw darts at someone who gave us a decade of service and yet, at then end of the day, would not have helped us one bit in those three games. Neither Davis nor Solly would probably have been selected anyway and as if to emphasise that point they haven't kicked a ball since this season. But, again, too many are suggesting that Solly would have been our saviour. He wouldn't.
Do agree with you about Cullen and Field though.
Davis was an on loan player, living away from home, probably in a hotel, during a Coronavirus outbreak. Him not wanting to continue with us was more understandable
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games.
Matthews was injured and it simply made more sense to play a right back at right back.
I don't care that we scraped through it with what we had. The club captain should have been available to play in his preferred position at that time.
Given your comment "he might well have caused us to concede" I'll respond with "he might well have allowed players to get forward more instead of worrying that the defensive three would be overrun" It was Cardiff that Matthews missed, the only game that we failed to score in of the three and we were forced to play 3-4-3 as we didn't have trustworthy enough options to not play 3 centre backs. Either or both could have occurred.
But that's the point it's "ifs" and "buts". There are plenty of other people to hold responsible for out demise but a player who had been with us for 11 years (again who was the last one to do that?) who has a chronic injury and hadn't been picked for six months (a full back at that not considered good enough to be selected by LB for one single minute since December) is responsible for us not winning a game.
I'm just surprised that we haven't a dossier on him!
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games.
Matthews was injured and it simply made more sense to play a right back at right back.
I don't care that we scraped through it with what we had. The club captain should have been available to play in his preferred position at that time.
Given your comment "he might well have caused us to concede" I'll respond with "he might well have allowed players to get forward more instead of worrying that the defensive three would be overrun" It was Cardiff that Matthews missed, the only game that we failed to score in of the three and we were forced to play 3-4-3 as we didn't have trustworthy enough options to not play 3 centre backs. Either or both could have occurred.
But that's the point it's "ifs" and "buts". There are plenty of other people to hold responsible for out demise but a player who had been with us for 11 years (again who was the last one to do that?) who has a chronic injury and hadn't been picked for six months (a full back at that not considered good enough to be selected by LB for one single minute since December) is responsible for us not winning a game.
I'm just surprised that we haven't a dossier on him!
He's not, he and Taylor it cannot be argued, by refusing to play or at least be one of the squad would have adversely affected the team. They are contributing factors for our relegation. They were supposed to be our senior pros.
Remind me who was Pearce's deputy, deputy captain? Taylor.
So 2 of our 3 most trusted players fucked us. I hold Solly less accountable, but they're both incredibly accountable. If not just by influence on the team.
Why? Because he may have a good reason. We know that he didn't have another club lined up. We know he was told we were letting him go. He may have felt he wasn't right and felt less inclined to take risks given that we were letting him go and his long standing serious injury issue. I think that is understandable and forgivable.
So the club captain can just down tools during a relegation battle if he isn’t going to be playing the next season?
Leave it out.
This. He was actually needed in at least one of the three games following Matthews picking up a knock.
Needed to do what though Dazzler? We didn't let a goal in those three games and an off the pace Solly, who hadn't played or been needed for six months, might well have cause us to concede in those games.
Matthews was injured and it simply made more sense to play a right back at right back.
I don't care that we scraped through it with what we had. The club captain should have been available to play in his preferred position at that time.
Given your comment "he might well have caused us to concede" I'll respond with "he might well have allowed players to get forward more instead of worrying that the defensive three would be overrun" It was Cardiff that Matthews missed, the only game that we failed to score in of the three and we were forced to play 3-4-3 as we didn't have trustworthy enough options to not play 3 centre backs. Either or both could have occurred.
But that's the point it's "ifs" and "buts". There are plenty of other people to hold responsible for out demise but a player who had been with us for 11 years (again who was the last one to do that?) who has a chronic injury and hadn't been picked for six months (a full back at that not considered good enough to be selected by LB for one single minute since December) is responsible for us not winning a game.
I'm just surprised that we haven't a dossier on him!
He's not, he and Taylor it cannot be argued, by refusing to play or at least be one of the squad would have adversely affected the team.
I'm not disputing Taylor. He was needed. He hadn't been with us for the whole of his career either.
But has LB said that Solly would even been picked? Because he hadn't been for six months and by virtue of that and not offering him a new contract he had, effectively, shown him the door! Yes he said that Solly, Davis and Taylor had refused to play. But that is not the same as saying he would definitely have picked Solly any more than he would have picked Davis.
And one other thing. In the two previous games that we won 1-0 we had the grand total of THREE shots on target. Thinking that playing Solly might have enabled us to suddenly improved that tally against Cardiff is slightly far fetched. Let's not forget that we only scored 6 goals in our final 9 matches. Solly really would not have helped and the fact we went down had absolutely nothing to do with him refusing to play.
Comments
So yes I would be putting my body on the line for a company that i'd worked for for over a decade who had always paid my wages. If you would even consider not doing so then a good long hard look in the mirror would be needed. Why you ask? because it's your job and what you are paid to do.
Had Taylor played, scored one or two, and we'd stayed up, I think people's attitude towards Solly, would be something along the lines of " shame he had to end his Charlton career in that way, but can't really blame him as he was very unlikely to play and he chose not to take a pointless risk"
I think we also need to remember his loyalty over many seasons.
There was a time at his peak when he was highly sought after and West Ham were rumoured to be after him. He never pushed for a move, as far as I'm aware.
I have seen him play more games than we were told he should to help us out. He has been a great servant for 10+ years and he is owed a bit of understanding. At least not to hang him before we know all the facts.
That said you cannot apply the same standards to a loan player (Davis) as you would your own when it comes to loyalty.
That's one reason I have the highest regard for Josh Cullen and Sam Field.
I‘m sure that we all wish him well at least health-wise and hope that he continues his career or has a good retirement!
As I say, no one mentions Davis because it's easier to throw darts at someone who gave us a decade of service and yet, at then end of the day, would not have helped us one bit in those three games. Neither Davis nor Solly would probably have been selected anyway and as if to emphasise that point they haven't kicked a ball since this season. But, again, too many are suggesting that Solly would have been our saviour. He wouldn't.
Do agree with you about Cullen and Field though.
I don't care that we scraped through it with what we had. The club captain should have been available to play in his preferred position at that time.
Given your comment "he might well have caused us to concede" I'll respond with "he might well have allowed players to get forward more instead of worrying that the defensive three would be overrun" It was Cardiff that Matthews missed, the only game that we failed to score in of the three and we were forced to play 3-4-3 as we didn't have trustworthy enough options to not play 3 centre backs. Either or both could have occurred.
I'm just surprised that we haven't a dossier on him!
Remind me who was Pearce's deputy, deputy captain? Taylor.
So 2 of our 3 most trusted players fucked us. I hold Solly less accountable, but they're both incredibly accountable. If not just by influence on the team.
Maybe.....
But has LB said that Solly would even been picked? Because he hadn't been for six months and by virtue of that and not offering him a new contract he had, effectively, shown him the door! Yes he said that Solly, Davis and Taylor had refused to play. But that is not the same as saying he would definitely have picked Solly any more than he would have picked Davis.
And one other thing. In the two previous games that we won 1-0 we had the grand total of THREE shots on target. Thinking that playing Solly might have enabled us to suddenly improved that tally against Cardiff is slightly far fetched. Let's not forget that we only scored 6 goals in our final 9 matches. Solly really would not have helped and the fact we went down had absolutely nothing to do with him refusing to play.