Charlie Oatway leaves 'by mutual consent'

[Pavilionaire]

Clearly this the outcome we were all expecting, but after Dick Knight Argus interview last week where he was highly critical of the club's treatment of Oatway I was hoping for some further clarification.

If Charlie is in the clear I'd certainly hope the club would have announced that, like they did with Tanno. You have to assume that the club still think he breached his contract and is guilty of something. This is Dean Wilkins Mark 2.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Re: Charlie's gone

The problem with the Oatway investigation is that what he was accused of is very subjective. Without wanting (or being able to) go into detail, this sort of situation is very much interpretation and opinion. You could debate it back and forth for a long time, which I presume is what happened and has led to this conclusion. I hope the truth comes out into the public domain so it can be discussed more, but I overwhelmingly doubt it ever will do.

 

[joeinbrighton]

It's a shame for his time at Brighton to come to an end in the way that it has, as he has been involved with the club for a long time and served it well in various guises. Hopefully the day will come when he can come back to the AMEX Stadium and watch matches be afforded a good welcome. Maybe that will be achievable when the dust has settled. It will be a shame if that can't happen.

 

[Titanic]

... I hope the truth comes out into the public domain so it can be discussed more, but I overwhelmingly doubt it ever will do.

what would the point of that be? Charlie and the club have both chosen to keep it under wraps, and for very good reasons... let it go.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Re: Charlie's gone

what would the point of that be? Charlie and the club have both chosen to keep it under wraps, and for very good reasons... let it go.

Is it really a choice they have made? It is due process, they couldn't mention it. Presumably, it is now resolved and if either party want to discuss it I would imagine they can. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a clause in the agreement preventing either party revealing what happened.

 

[Simster]

I wonder how long it will be before the fallout from the play off debacle all comes out in the wash? I wasn't expecting anything more than what the club has told us because they've done a good job of supressing any leaks so far.

But like lots on here, I'm just really jaded by it all now. We need a couple of exciting signings and a bang tidy pre-season under Oscar to get the club rocking again.

 

[Arrid]

Thought he'd be here for the next 30 years working under various managers

Yes, because that happens in football quite alot ?

 

[8ace]

I'm assuming mutual consent means that the club has paid up the remainder of his contract and like Tanno his suspension was lifted.

I'd guess some kind of payoff but not all of his contract.

 

[BigGully]

The problem with the Oatway investigation is that what he was accused of is very subjective. Without wanting (or being able to) go into detail, this sort of situation is very much interpretation and opinion. You could debate it back and forth for a long time, which I presume is what happened and has led to this conclusion. I hope the truth comes out into the public domain so it can be discussed more, but I overwhelmingly doubt it ever will do.

Perhaps Charlie didnt want the details to come out, he neednt of signed anything that constitutes 'by mutual consent'.

He leaves with his reputation in tact and BHA move on and re-appoint someone they might feel is better at their job than Charlie was.

Its a deal, not necessarily in favour of one or the other.

 

[YoungGull]

and this is why View attachment 44486View attachment 44487

 

[Mellotron]

He got a 'he's sacked effective immediately following an investigation' press release, not a 'we've fired him but he may or may not appeal, so we won't say goodbye yet' press release.

I don't think he'll get his proper goodbye until his appeal (if lodged) fails (if it does). Could be wrong.

 

[rool]

and this is why View attachment 44486View attachment 44487

Looks like a tag bout

 

[drew]

I would suggest that as the club have not exonerated him in a statement as they did with Tanno, then if he didn't agree to leave then he would've been sacked. Unlikely he got his full contract paid but thi does keep everything in house for the time being. It might also mean CO is a witness against Poyet in the event he does actually appeal. Of course this development may persuade Poyet not to appeal and save the club a couple of million!!!

 

[drew]

I don't think he'll get his proper goodbye until his appeal (if lodged) fails (if it does). Could be wrong.

On what basis do you appeal against a decision you have mutually agreed to.


Edit. sorry, see you're talking about Poyet.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Re: Charlie's gone

I would suggest that as the club have not exonerated him in a statement as they did with Tanno, then if he didn't agree to leave then he would've been sacked. Unlikely he got his full contract paid but thi does keep everything in house for the time being. It might also mean CO is a witness against Poyet in the event he does actually appeal. Of course this development may persuade Poyet not to appeal and save the club a couple of million!!!

Where was the exoneration?

 

[ROSM]

I would suggest that as the club have not exonerated him in a statement as they did with Tanno, then if he didn't agree to leave then he would've been sacked. Unlikely he got his yfull contract paid but thi does keep everything in house for the time being. It might also mean CO is a witness against Poyet in the event he does actually appeal. Of course this development may persuade Poyet not to appeal and save the club a couple of million!!!

And it is for this kind of post that I am very saddened about the way the end has come. All it has done is to leave more doubts and opportunities for guesswork.

Its just as easy to say

A) that im sure that if the club believed after a hearing that he was guilty they would have disciplined him.

Or

B) that if he was innocent he wouldn't have agreed to go under mutual consent

I know of people who have accepted redundancy under compromise in order to stop a reputation damaging sacking. I also know of situations where significantly more has been paid to prevent the employer having to climb down especially where unproven is the answer or to protect within the company, the complainant who may still be there.

 

[drew]

Where was the exoneration?

The fact his suspension was lifted would suggest there was no case to answer. Of course it could me he held up his hand apologised and that was accepted!

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Re: Charlie's gone

The fact his suspension was lifted would suggest there was no case to answer. Of course it could me he held up his hand apologised and that was accepted!

When was his suspension lifted? He has left the club, nothing suggests there "was no case to answer".

 

[leigull]

When was his suspension lifted? He has left the club, nothing suggests there "was no case to answer".

When the club said his suspension was lifted? http://www.seagulls.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-suspensions-859181.aspx

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Charlie Oatway leaving by mutual consent means whatever happened stays between the club and himself. As part of the holy trinity he ended up in an untenable position.