Charlie Oatway leaves 'by mutual consent'

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

If what I, and many others, have heard about this whole situation is true then I suspect they've struggled to prove the charges and have come to an agreement which removes him from the club but also doesn't publically accuse him of something which can't be taken back. I doubt we're ever going to know the truth entirely though.

Please don't tell me your referring to poogate

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm not sure we have sufficient information to draw this conclusion, do we?

But the Club said that they would follow UK employment law. The fact that they have pulled out of the process before it reached the conclusion they were working towards suggests that a realisation has kicked in that the process wasn't working for them.

As long as any suggestion remains that Charlie might have been "guilty" of something (and a number of posters in this thread seem to be prepared to believe this), then Charlie is being maligned. This is no way to treat him.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Re: Charlie's gone

Oatway has settled. He didn't have to. The end.

 

[somerset]

The fact that they have pulled out of the process before it reached the conclusion they were working towards .

But,.... it is equally possible that he himself pulled out of the process, in that he took what may have been on the table for any easy out, we have no details on how serious or not this issue was.

 

[soistes]

But the Club said that they would follow UK employment law. The fact that they have pulled out of the process before it reached the conclusion they were working towards suggests that a realisation has kicked in that the process wasn't working for them.

As long as any suggestion remains that Charlie might have been "guilty" of something (and a number of posters in this thread seem to be prepared to believe this), then Charlie is being maligned. This is no way to treat him.

If, for example, someone was agreed to be guilty of a dismissable offence (e.g. because the evidence was overwhelming and no defence was possible), the employer might nevertheless agree not to dismiss that person (e.g. because they didn't want media coverage of the details of the offence), and strike a deal with the employee that they could leave "by mutual consent" on condition that they observe a compromise agreement to no publicity. That is entirely in line with English employment law.

 

[Miffy]

But the Club said that they would follow UK employment law. The fact that they have pulled out of the process before it reached the conclusion they were working towards suggests that a realisation has kicked in that the process wasn't working for them.

As long as any suggestion remains that Charlie might have been "guilty" of something (and a number of posters in this thread seem to be prepared to believe this), then Charlie is being maligned. This is no way to treat him.

Very much this.

If the departure is by mutual agreement then the disciplinary proceedings have stopped. Whatever the outcome would have been had they proceeded and Charlie been given a chance to defend himself, as things stand the accusations against him are unproven. I agree, the club should make this clear rather than leaving it hanging unsaid with the implications that some may draw from that.

Feels like a bad way to treat him after so many years of loyalty

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I don't see how.

We have followed the correct legal process (as should be the case), the appeal is the end of that process. I can see no benefit whatsoever to any party dragging it on past that.

Gus is very unlikely to get re-instated. It WILL go to court if he isn't or doesn't get his full contractual payout.

 

[Titanic]

"The club would like to sincerely thank Charlie for his hard work, commitment and dedication since he joined the club in 1999.

Charlie joined the club as a player in 1999, eventually becoming club captain. During Charlie’s successful playing career, he helped the club secure championships in 2001 and 2002 and a play-off victory in 2004.

Following the end of his playing career, Charlie remained involved with the club working with its charitable arm Albion in the Community.

In November 2009, Charlie became First Team Coach, helping to guide the team to promotion as League One champions in 2011 and a highly creditable 4th placed finish last season, the club’s highest position for 30 years.

We wish him all the very best for the future and are confident he will have a long and successful career ahead of him."

 

[Titanic]

Gus is very unlikely to get re-instated. It WILL go to court if he isn't or doesn't get his full contractual payout.

Which COURT?

 

[dougdeep]

Just a sad state of affairs and shame he has left the club this way. Will we ever find out the reason why?

Not unless he writes another book.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

If Poyet gets another job - looks like he owes CO a position - otherwise he's taken advantage.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Gus is very unlikely to get re-instated. It WILL go to court if he isn't or doesn't get his full contractual payout.

He 100% will not be reinstated. He's been sacked. A tribunal can't force the club to reinstate him.

 

[Miffy]

Which COURT?

Depends on how complex and the figures involved .. Could also be seen as setting a precedent for this industry.

So either Employment Tribunal, County Court (most likely at this level) or High Court if deemed complex or important enough.

All assuming that the appeal does not go in Gus's favour and he decides to contest his dismissal further of course

 

[ROSM]

I think the main reason its ended like it has for Charlie, is with the new management/coaching team, he is surplus to requirements, just as Tanno was. I would like to think the reason Charlies was announced now and not with Tanno, is because they may have been finding a way of slotting him back in somewhere, but don't know that for sure. Although I am 100% with the club with how they treated Poyet, I think they have been a tad harsh on Charlie, but with a new manager/coach, this was alway likely to happen anyway.

Agree entirely re Charlie

 

[BensGrandad]

Would assume that his testimonial is now out of the window

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Which COURT?

No.14

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Which COURT?

He 100% will not be reinstated. He's been sacked. A tribunal can't force the club to reinstate him.

More than likely County Court - it won't go to a tribunal.

 

[drew]

If, for example, someone was agreed to be guilty of a dismissable offence (e.g. because the evidence was overwhelming and no defence was possible), the employer might nevertheless agree not to dismiss that person (e.g. because they didn't want media coverage of the details of the offence), and strike a deal with the employee that they could leave "by mutual consent" on condition that they observe a compromise agreement to no publicity. That is entirely in line with English employment law.

Thanks, saved me typing it.

 

[Saltydog]

Which COURT?

Centre Court

 

[Barrel of Fun]

More than likely County Court - it won't go to a tribunal.

I am struggling to see the benefits of going to a tribunal what with the County Court having no limits placed upon them for potential awards.

However, a County Court can't force his reinstatement, can they?