Chris Solly - joining our academy coaching staff says Cawley (p34)

Dansk_Red said:

How many times was he in the match day squad, during the last 3 months of his contract? Bowyer never seem to pick him.

Chris Solly - Stats 19/20 | Transfermarkt

ForeverAddickted said:

Dansk_Red said:

How many times was he in the match day squad, during the last 3 months of his contract? Bowyer never seem to pick him.

Chris Solly - Stats 19/20 | Transfermarkt

Thanks,it looks like he was not going to be picked unlike Taylor. In any case he deserves a 2nd chance after the service he gave to the club over the years. 

Hal1x said:

Someone who put his own interests over that of the firm he works for, that must have only ever happened in these two instances, shameful!.

Disappointing but understandable.

I think we can all understand why they did it but why is it one gets more heat than the other, I think we all know why.

I think that Solly’s actions were out of character, whereas Taylor always seemed to relish being in the public eye, and acted in a way which certainly didn’t surprise me.
Personally, I bear no malice towards Solly, whereas I would not give Taylor the time of day.

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The fact of the matter was he refused to be involved when he could of been useful for his own personal benefit, its the same situation as Taylor. I understand why they did it but don't agree with it.

I think we all know why Solly gets an easier time than Taylor even though they both refused to play whilst under contract. "one of our boys" club.

It’s probably because if Solly had played we still would have been relegated, if Taylor had played then we would have stayed up

I’m not even sure Solly would have played a game anyway, Matthews and Oshilaja were both better options at full back at the time 

I'm sorry thats just nonsense that we would have played we would have stayed up our team as a whole was poor, he scored 11 goals that season and half of which was penalties (I believe), would he have been useful ? yes. Would we have stayed up probably not.

So there was even less of a reason for Solly to refuse to play ?

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The fact of the matter was he refused to be involved when he could of been useful for his own personal benefit, its the same situation as Taylor. I understand why they did it but don't agree with it.

I think we all know why Solly gets an easier time than Taylor even though they both refused to play whilst under contract. "one of our boys" club.

It’s probably because if Solly had played we still would have been relegated, if Taylor had played then we would have stayed up

I’m not even sure Solly would have played a game anyway, Matthews and Oshilaja were both better options at full back at the time 

I'm sorry thats just nonsense that we would have played we would have stayed up our team as a whole was poor, he scored 11 goals that season and half of which was penalties (I believe), would he have been useful ? yes. Would we have stayed up probably not.

So there was even less of a reason for Solly to refuse to play ?

We’d have easily stayed up if Taylor had played, 1 more goal would have done it. We had Bonne and Hemed starting games up front ffs!!! He scored 11 goals despite being injured for quite a stretch of the season and then missing the last bit, but not to mention the rest of his game that made the whole team better. 

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The fact of the matter was he refused to be involved when he could of been useful for his own personal benefit, its the same situation as Taylor. I understand why they did it but don't agree with it.

I think we all know why Solly gets an easier time than Taylor even though they both refused to play whilst under contract. "one of our boys" club.

It’s probably because if Solly had played we still would have been relegated, if Taylor had played then we would have stayed up

I’m not even sure Solly would have played a game anyway, Matthews and Oshilaja were both better options at full back at the time 

I'm sorry thats just nonsense that we would have played we would have stayed up our team as a whole was poor, he scored 11 goals that season and half of which was penalties (I believe), would he have been useful ? yes. Would we have stayed up probably not.

So there was even less of a reason for Solly to refuse to play ?

We’d have easily stayed up if Taylor had played, 1 more goal would have done it. We had Bonne and Hemed starting games up front ffs!!! He scored 11 goals despite being injured for quite a stretch of the season and then missing the last bit, but not to mention the rest of his game that made the whole team better. 

Half of those goals were penalties. There was no guarantees we would get a pen ? He got the same amount of goals as Bonne ? 

Garrymanilow said:

Because one was our first choice centre forward and best player and the other was a reserve right back who would have played exactly 90 minutes in the run-in and wasn't even missed on the occasion he would have been used. I didn't like Solly doing that but it's not enough to offset the seven or so years of fantastic service he gave us. Taylor didn't quite manage to complete two seasons for us and we needed him desperately. Plus Taylor's a prick.

Make that 12 seasons.

JaShea99 said:

I still can’t tell if the “what’s the difference between Taylor and Solly?” comments are genuine or from WUMs but if you genuinely can’t see it then I don’t even know where to start.

Quite, one was the club captain. Makes it worse, morally, in my eyes. 

NabySarr said:

Radostanradical said:

The fact of the matter was he refused to be involved when he could of been useful for his own personal benefit, its the same situation as Taylor. I understand why they did it but don't agree with it.

I think we all know why Solly gets an easier time than Taylor even though they both refused to play whilst under contract. "one of our boys" club.

It’s probably because if Solly had played we still would have been relegated, if Taylor had played then we would have stayed up

I’m not even sure Solly would have played a game anyway, Matthews and Oshilaja were both better options at full back at the time 

I'd use the word preferred but agree with you.

I'm really not sure why Solly gets so much stick. Bowyer last picked him for a cup match on 5th January. After that he did not play him in a single game. Bowyer told Solly he wasn't getting another contract and he almost certainly would not have picked him anyway. Even if Solly had played he would not have made one difference to the way things ended up for us.

Bowyer also openly admits that he used the absence of Taylor, Solly and Davis as a means of bringing the rest of the squad together and to do that the last thing he would have wanted was a "conscientious objector" hanging around the place as that would have undermined the message he was trying to give. Bowyer ultimately showed how really annoyed he was with them that the first thing he did when he got to Birmingham was to sign Taylor, the very person that might have scored a goal or two to keep us up.

Rather than focusing on that episode, surely people can see the benefit of having someone coaching our lads who did play for 12 years for us, understands the Club and never gave anything other than his best when on the pitch. For us. Than a hypothetical final month or so when he didn't play. Because one things for certain and that is that it wasn't his fault that we went down. 

But, when all is said and done, the decision to bring Solly back isn't ours. That decision would have been influenced by the likes of Steve Avory (Director of Coaching), Rhys Williams (Head of Coaching), Jason Pearce (Senior Professional Development Lead Coach) and Tracey Leaburn (Player Liaison Officer). Any doubts about Solly and they would have told the hierarchy not to touch him with a bargepole. It's not as if the footballing world is so short of coaches that we had to re-employ him is it?