Charlie Oatway leaves 'by mutual consent'

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

Next time we have a manager that loses ten in a row and leaves us in the relegation zone we won't be suspending him on disciplinary charges, I assure you.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

Yep, you only have to hear the numerous interviews on the Albion Roar with Oatway himself, Mayo, Hart, Kuipers, Booker to learn about this matey, practical-joke, intimidating-the-opposition culture that persisted for so long at Brighton and seems to be responsible for all the success we had at Withdean. Reading between the lines, it seems that Gus bought into this too, but that some of the overseas players less so (i.e. Vicente). Certainly all the British players on record are big fans of Gus' methods.

Suspendng him for behaving in a way they knew he would when they employed him seems very underhand. Unnecessary too, there could have been any number of roles for him at Brighton after he left a first-team coach position. He was part of the Brighton family for 14 years and this must have hit him hard.

 

[ROSM]

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.

Well said Buzzer

As you also said, many people who have heard things will have done so from one side only. That's the same with me, albeit from 5 different people.

In most employee matters, custom and practice are a strong factor. If the club haven't pointed out issues in the past, or attempted to realign behaviour, it is very difficult to them dismiss them. More so perhaps if the main witness is unsubstantiated or not wishing to push it as far as the employer wants to.

 

[ROSM]

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.

As football only follows employment and contract law, then to stop paying large amounts in compensation, you need to stop paying large amounts in wages and bonuses.

Perhaps that was our aim when not agreeing to Glenn Murray's wage demands

 

[Goldstone1976]

Next time we have a manager that loses ten in a row and leaves us in the relegation zone we won't be suspending him on disciplinary charges, I assure you.

I think this point is a really interesting one. The club has set a very public precedent in following UK employment law with the three suspensions and investigations and have been vocal that (part of) their reason has been that they wish to behave like any other business. So, what does happen if, as KG, says we find ourselves in the relegation zone with a manager (sorry, Coach) who is unable to motivate the team to perform better? Unless there are clear performance-related criteria in OG's contract (which there might be; who knows?), it will be impossible to get rid of him following UK employment law in anything like enough time to rescue a dire situation - GP's situation took 6 weeks before we could appoint a new manager/coach.

Whilst the club may have started a new trend in how to deal with coaching staff, and will, of course, hopefully saved a decent wad of wonga by reducing (possibly to nil) the amount of compensation they have to pay to GP, have they also created a situation they will live to regret at some indeterminate point of time in the future? Or - would they simply revert to footballing norm and just fire an under performing coach if that situation occurred?

Time will tell - but I, for one, will be interested to see what happens next time we're in trouble on the pitch, which, let's face it, is bound to happen sooner or later....

 

[Goldstone1976]

Dup post

 

[driller]

This will go
All the way
To court

The lma
Will run
And run
With it
As it could see a president
For all clubs.

 

[drew]

Well said Buzzer

As you also said, many people who have heard things will have done so from one side only. That's the same with me, albeit from 5 different people.

In most employee matters, custom and practice are a strong factor. If the club haven't pointed out issues in the past, or attempted to realign behaviour, it is very difficult to them dismiss them. More so perhaps if the main witness is unsubstantiated or not wishing to push it as far as the employer wants to.

That probably sums up the situation exactly as I see it.
Edit. I was, in the main, referring to Buzzer's post.

 

[Garage_Doors]

My source is reliable and well-informed.

Ok thats good enough for me.
The amout although aware it can't and wont't be made public will have a significant bearing on events in my view.
If he was just paid up for the 1-3.months in lieu of notice or the balance of contract if required by law this would suggest one thing.
Or if he was paid addition sums in the form of a golden handshake for loyal service etc that would suggests another.
The fact he was "paid off" does not indicate one way or the other.

 

[driller]

Of course there has been a pay-off.

Tanno yes

The others no

Probably ......

 

[Dandyman]

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.

Very much this.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

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.

Didn't you say you know what's alleged and what someone's opinion on the matter is? That doesn't sound like fact to me, one is an allegation which can be made without truth and the other is personal opinion. How often do people's personal feelings twist how they view things?

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

On a completely unrelated subject...does anyone know where i can get a 'as broadcast' version of the palace game?

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

On a completely unrelated subject...does anyone know where i can get a 'as broadcast' version of the palace game?

eBay had someone selling it recently.

 

[Miffy]

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.

So you are adamant that the claim came from players based on the words of one member of staff interviewed and yet numerous other very reliable sources on here are all wrong when they say it wasn't a player? So name the players.

The players may well have been interviewed and as that is the man part of Charle's job I'd be surprised if they weren't but that isn't the same as the complaint coming from them.

All this speculation over the outcome of the hearing - does anyone know if he was even actually granted one

It seems fairly obvious to me that Charlie's job effectively disappeared when the new team came in, unless Oscar is planning on his own coach being Charlie's assistant which is unlikely. I would imagine that the combination of lack of evidence and the new position at the club means that the disciplinary side just never happened. The club should have clarified it as its making people read more into it but its possible that the suspension wasn't formally lifted because it was simply no longer relevant and therefore overlooked. Just my view.

 

[Canonman]

My source is reliable and well-informed.

Name your source My Lord, if you would be so kind, I too know people inside the club.

 

[Miffy]

I think this point is a really interesting one. The club has set a very public precedent in following UK employment law with the three suspensions and investigations and have been vocal that (part of) their reason has been that they wish to behave like any other business. So, what does happen if, as KG, says we find ourselves in the relegation zone with a manager (sorry, Coach) who is unable to motivate the team to perform better? Unless there are clear performance-related criteria in OG's contract (which there might be; who knows?), it will be impossible to get rid of him following UK employment law in anything like enough time to rescue a dire situation - GP's situation took 6 weeks before we could appoint a new manager/coach.

Whilst the club may have started a new trend in how to deal with coaching staff, and will, of course, hopefully saved a decent wad of wonga by reducing (possibly to nil) the amount of compensation they have to pay to GP, have they also created a situation they will live to regret at some indeterminate point of time in the future? Or - would they simply revert to footballing norm and just fire an under performing coach if that situation occurred?

Time will tell - but I, for one, will be interested to see what happens next time we're in trouble on the pitch, which, let's face it, is bound to happen sooner or later....

They'll simply do the same as every other industry and reach a settlement agreement for breach of contract on the club's part. The difference with the Gus situation is that he hasn't been dismissed based on results but for breaches for contract on his part rather than on the part of the club.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Name your source My Lord, if you would be so kind, I too know people inside the club.

I think a lot of us have an inside contact but you can't expect anyone to name them !

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I hope he got a pay off. He was wandering about at Paddle Round the Pier today without a shirt on, poor fellow.

 

[smudge]

Just decided to read through this thread to see if it answered any questions.
A lot of willy waving from those supposedly ITK, that's it.