Charlie Oatway leaves 'by mutual consent'

[Cheshire Cat]

Can you all stop assuming that everyone knows what has happened, and somebody actually say it.

I have no idea who did what to whom, and all this "nudge nudge wink wink, know what I mean" stuff if frankly irritating to those of us (me) who are not "in the know".

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I'm told it wasn't a player.

You're right. It wasn't A player... it was more than one. Which is why they were all interviewed. And it was inconclusive, because as someone else said... one mans banter is another mans bullying. A nightmare to try and prove, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that certain people didn't feel bullied.

 

[Springal]

Thing is club need to be protective, especially with Youth Charters etc, we have a few lads around the first team and DS that are 17/18 so maybe the "banter" was getting a bit close to the bone ?

I get the feeling Oatway is the kind of person everyone laughs along with to be part of the group, but actually people find a bit irritating ? We all know the type.

Either way loyal servant so hopefully he can move on and get a good coaching role elsewhere soon.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Wonder how Oatway would have reacted if someone had taken the piss out of him for not being able to read or write ?

Haven't you heard him tell the story of when he tried to drive to Luton, and his fellow players had given him wrong directions knowing he couldn't read the road signs? He laughed when he told it.

 

[Bra]

You're right. It wasn't A player... it was more than one. Which is why they were all interviewed. And it was inconclusive, because as someone else said... one mans banter is another mans bullying. A nightmare to try and prove, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that certain people didn't feel bullied.

You are right about nightmare. We have had a case recently where we ended up interviewing 30 people from one shift over a remark and it was split almost 50/50 over people who thought it funny and banter and stated that the accussed did not mean any offence and the others who said the opposite.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

You're right. It wasn't A player... it was more than one. Which is why they were all interviewed. And it was inconclusive, because as someone else said... one mans banter is another mans bullying. A nightmare to try and prove, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that certain people didn't feel bullied.

Another one whos adding 2+2 and coming up with 9. Still waiting for you to tell the nice ladies and gentlemen what this "fact" is?

 

[herecomesaregular]

So, now these opinions plus the Argus interview with Vicente and Poyet's "everyone knows how I treat the players" comment during the BBC "live sacking that wasn't" and all three suspended at the same time.

 

[London Irish]

Did I hear right - that there were some Brighton fans chanting his name at the game today?

Bit of a coincidence really that these accusations against Charlie surface and get dealt just as the Poyet stuff explodes and his case gets dealt with. Not a big believer in coincidences.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

You are right about nightmare. We have had a case recently where we ended up interviewing 30 people from one shift over a remark and it was split almost 50/50 over people who thought it funny and banter and stated that the accussed did not mean any offence and the others who said the opposite.

Exactly the point. It's not something I'd want to resolve!

Another one whos adding 2+2 and coming up with 9. Still waiting for you to tell the nice ladies and gentlemen what this "fact" is?

Don't assume I don't know anything. Others might, or might not, but I know what I'm talking about. Believe me or not, it doesn't matter.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Exactly the point. It's not something I'd want to resolve!



Don't assume I don't know anything. Others might, or might not, but I know what I'm talking about. Believe me or not, it doesn't matter.

I'm sure you probably know everything but what is the point on coming on here saying I know but I can't say. That is no different from me saying I don't know so I can't say except it just makes you look more important than me

 

[drew]

"His suspension was never lifted before he left"?

He has left. His relationship with his employer has ceased. His ex-employer is in no position to "lift" a suspension.

If that is supposed to be an argument for assuming that the investigation must have found the charges substantiated, I'm gob-smacked.

So your gob smacked. Your argument seems therefore that they have only just completed their investigations told Oatway they found nothing wrong and but that he wasn't wanted and paid him off. If you were Oatway and/or his advisors, you would require the club to publicly declare that the investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing and that the suspension had been lifted but due to changes both parties agreed it would be mutually beneficial to go their separate ways. That didn't happen. There is still a cloud over Oatway which he may well have accepted rather than go down the route of risking it all being exposed!

It's all about money. If the club had simply sacked Poyet they would have had to pay his contract up which had another two years to run. By going through all the employment process, he was then dismissed without a penny, which is why he appealed. He doesn't want to be with us, & the club doesn't want him. It's all about money.

Do we know for a fact that he has formally lodged an appeal? We know he said he would but that was on the day of the sacking. Has he actually taken it further?

You are right about nightmare. We have had a case recently where we ended up interviewing 30 people from one shift over a remark and it was split almost 50/50 over people who thought it funny and banter and stated that the accussed did not mean any offence and the others who said the opposite.

But a tribunal will decide whether the injured party were right to perceive they were being bullied. The fact that half of the other employees perceived it to be bullying too would suggest there was a valid case.

 

[Buzzer]

I feel for Charlie, I really do. He was, so I understand, encouraged by the club to bring in a bit of bite and humour to the team/dressing room and he was the driving force of the team when we blagged a couple of seasons of Championship football with journeymen, lower league obscurities and of course our aces in the pack, Zamora and Knight.

From what I understand he has overstepped the mark on numerous occasions but the club were apparently happy with his attitude and behaviour and didn't seem to rein it in. His column in the official club programme is a testimony to that.

And the AITC guys adore him because he cares about it, can see why AITC is important and also he's been a very vocal supporter of a few initiatives that belie the hard-man image and his own background. I'm thinking of the illiteracy campaign of course but also anti-homophobia campaigns.

The telling factor in all this was that he was suspended at EXACTLY the same time as Tanno and Gus but for unrelated reasons. That's not coincidence. Anyone and everyone can see that. Charlie has upset someone senior in the backroom (that's almost common knowledge now) and the club have appeared to use the Gus situation to tie up loose ends about what to do with Charlie under a new regime.

Proper HR procedures were clearly followed thereafter or Charlie would still be contesting it. It seems to me (as an outsider who occasionally hears insider gossip) that the club gave Charlie enough rope to hang himself. In this situation are the club the villains for not nipping it in the bud (or maybe they weren't told about it by this senior person previously) or is it Charlie - regardless of what kind of character you have, he should have known what the limits were in a workplace? I've got no idea.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Do we know for a fact that he has formally lodged an appeal? We know he said he would but that was on the day of the sacking. Has he actually taken it further?
.

I don't know, but it has been reported that the situation with Gus Poyet is still ongoing.

 

[Buzzer]

I am not prepared to accept this treatment of Charlie until the club explain why he has been sacked,mutual agreement can often mean resign today or be sacked tomorrow.
Thanking a loyal member of staff for his past efforts then disposing of him could well influence others joining the club.
Wishing you all the best in the future Charlie.

Haha! That'll learn 'em. So what are you going to do? Armed with (at your own admission) absolutely no knowledge of the details of the case too.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is this a fact you can back up or just your opinion?

My source is reliable and well-informed.

 

[clapham_gull]

But that's exactly the point isn't it? The legal burden was on the club to prove guilt in the eyes of the law, which is notoriously difficult to do, and they failed. Which is why they've settled his contract and ultimately, I would suggest that is the best outcome all round really. But he certainly wasn't innocent of the charges, they just couldn't prove them legally.

It has nothing to do with Gus. Nothing at all, I know as much as anyone else about that situation... very little. But Charlie is a different story, which ultimately has found the inevitable conclusion

And in the real world.

My industry is a bit like football in many respects. Things go on, people behave in certain ways. In most places of work they would be shown the door. I won't go into details but when I first started out I saw lots of behaviour that should have resulted in on the spot dismissal.

Not so bad these days, but it still goes on. Nothing illegal, but put it this way, if you did it working for a supermarket your feet wouldn't touch the ground.

The advice I always give young people starting out is don't look to others as a standard of how to behave because it gives them upstairs an excuse to get rid of you when they want.

Interesting comment about enough rope to hang yourself above. Oh yes. I've observed that loads of times. A slight variant being moving someone to work with someone they despise, knowing they will resign.

Of course the employer isn't at fault here. Just the huge egos of employees who often take an outwardly dislike to their staff or manager.

So it's probably unwise to apply your world to the football industry.

The way I see it all the recent trouble is this. The standards of the outside world have been applied to one that lives by it's own rules. There is possibly an agenda, but it's backed up employment law.

I suspect many other clubs have looked at the recent happenings at Brighton and thought wow. It's actually not that difficult to sack someone.

 

[Buzzer]

Obviously?

Eh? It seems obvious to me that it DID go in Charlie's favour.

The Club backed down and have hidden their embarrassment by paying him off.

It would only be obvious if you knew for sure what exactly went on. No disrespect but I suspect that your sources are not in that position. They may know some of the story, even a lot of the story but I think you're jumping to conclusions here and not entirely dispassionately either.

He has left. His relationship with his employer has ceased.

I read that in the style of the Parrot sketch. It seems appropriate after everything that's gone on.

 

[Beach Hut]

I actually hope by what has happened now actually stops all this futile massive compensation trend that happens in football.

I know the old guard hate this but we are a progressive football club under Tony bloom and are actually leading the right way forward where perhaps the financial side of football actually comes back under control.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I read that in the style of the Parrot sketch. It seems appropriate after everything that's gone on.

On the subject of embarrassment, here's another Pythonesque sketch, featuring an apparently German doctor and a man dressed in blue shorts ...

[yt]FtNkaWJid9I[/yt]

 

[Buzzer]

Exellent skills there, Lord B. I can't top that. I'm off to bed.