Refusing to play

Wow … how pious.

Pags is right. It's a public forum to air views, or god forbid even own held opinion.

comment by VOF - I can see clearly now.... (U17124)
posted 9 minutes ago
Wow … how pious.

Pags is right. It's a public forum to air views, or god forbid even own held opinion.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
And by all means hold them. Just try to be informed.

I must admit I am surprised by the amount of comments arguing he's under contract and getting paid so should play. Which misses the whole point of the situation, in that he isn't under contract or getting paid during the months in which the games are played.

There is definitely an argument he should have signed a contract extension of 2 months to cover these games. But most people haven't made this argument on here and have misunderstood the situation.

comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
I'm more than happy to see other views if they happen to be informed and actually acknowledge the facts.

The amount of comments here spouting how he is "under contract" when, in actual fact, he absolutely isn't. He'd probably be under contract from Charlton for, at most, two or three games out of nine. If they have given him the choice to say no to playing those games then that is because the club appreciates that there is a line between what is best for the club and the player.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people here probably hadn't heard of Lyle Taylor or Chris Solly before, and so the faux oureage of someone doing exactly the same thing that any of us would do in their position, after plenty of positive years of service to their football club, is mildly amusing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit, Lubo, I had a go at the fella, too - but only because I was under the impression he was under contract and getting paid during that period. Are you saying that's not the case?

Lorra, their contract expire at the end of June. They have been offered a 2 month extension but turned it down. They don't want to sign a two month extension which could jeopardise a 3 year contract for double the money.

I'm making assumption with the figures but it is expected to be life changing contract for the two players should they land it.

I still think it's wrong what they are doing. But I do completely understand it. It's not fair on Charlton and I would be effed off we were in that position.

It's a very tough position for the players to be in though. The two players will not have earned massive amounts over their careers when you look at the clubs they have played for. Rangers who are supposed to be in the running for Lyle Taylor may be coming close to doubling his career earnings over a 3 or 4 year contract.

As I said I still actually think it's the wrong thing to do but this is not a simple case of a player refusing to play while under contract and getting paid.

does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace

comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 24 minutes ago
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a disgrace not playing when you aren't under contract?

comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 24 minutes ago
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a disgrace not playing when you aren't under contract?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah disgrace. Willian won’t have a contract either. We should ask him to play for us and if he says no he’s a disgrace and we should sack him for refusing to play.

circumstances dictate

comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 58 minutes ago
circumstances dictate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I assume that you would also keep going in to a job that offered far less security and money? Right