Charlie Oatway leaves 'by mutual consent'

[Hungry Joe]

Is anyone else not really bothered about knowing what actually went on? I quite enjoy a good mystery.

 

[Acker79]

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

No. The point is you said this leaving by mutual consent saves both sides face. It does not. The club have failed to prove Charlie's guilt, he is therefore, legally speaking, innocent. Keeping mystery around it leads to questions, rumours, innuendo, claims and counter claims that are far worse for both sides than releasing a statement confirming they found no evidence of wrong doing. Charlie has a cloud over his name because no one officially knows the result of the investigation, but they all know he was subject to one, and that it continued beyond gus's (was that also read out on national television?) so he hasn't really saved face. The club have the appearance of a sulky kid who couldn't prove his claim so just changed the subject hoping everyone just forgets what they said. That's not saving face.

A statement confirming no evidence found, gives closure so Charlie can save face, shows the club followed procedure and acted legally and the club can be proud of its professionalism and save face.

 

[vegster]

"But he certainly wasn't innocent of the charges" - that's quite some claim you're making, considering you're scared to say what the charges actually are.

I find it quite unsavoury they've just left this suspension hanging without any conclusion to it, its smearing his character without having to prove anything.

But Charlie has been " Investigated " in a thorough and professional way, obviously the result of which did not go in Charlie's favour. I think it's pretty obvious that he would have been sacked but the club have offered a mutual consent option given his long service and connection with the club. In the old days you might have been given the option of going for a walk in the woods with your revolver, these days its a mutual consent option.

 

[Footsoldier]

Is anyone else not really bothered about knowing what actually went on? I quite enjoy a good mystery.

Not bothered and don't care but just want poyet gone now as there is a bad stench still lurcking about and that'll soon go when poyet does one with the other two clowns.

Oscar is our new man so from now on I've never heard of Bungle, Zippy and George.

 

[Beach Hut]

It seems one had to go, Poyet which meant his assistants as well.

We just need to move on very quickly

 

[BHAZiggy]

This makes hilarious reading. Those who know nothing are talking as if they have some sort of understanding about what has occurred.
It is entirely possible that leaving by mutual consent has nothing to do with the suspension. It wouldn't surprise me if he has left for the same reason that most coaching staff leave their clubs and that is that they have simply found somebody who can do a better job and, loyal servant or not, they want him replaced. I have no idea what happened but it's just as feasible as anything else suggested.

 

[BigGully]

This makes hilarious reading. Those who know nothing are talking as if they have some sort of understanding about what has occurred.
It is entirely possible that leaving by mutual consent has nothing to do with the suspension. It wouldn't surprise me if he has left for the same reason that most coaching staff leave their clubs and that is that they have simply found somebody who can do a better job and, loyal servant or not, they want him replaced. I have no idea what happened but it's just as feasible as anything else suggested.

Nice to see you join in he hilarity ......

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

But Charlie has been " Investigated " in a thorough and professional way, obviously the result of which did not go in Charlie's favour. I think it's pretty obvious that he would have been sacked but the club have offered a mutual consent option given his long service and connection with the club. In the old days you might have been given the option of going for a walk in the woods with your revolver, these days its a mutual consent option.

I'll accept it as a possibility but I certainly won't agree its 'obvious'.

If a mutual consent departure was the outcome the club wanted then they should have just done it straight off and not suspended him at all. The very act of publicly suspending and investigating him suggests strongly to me that the club were not interested in saving Charlie's face, despite his long service and connection with the club.

 

[Pbseagull]

Which COURT?

Margaret?

 

[BHAZiggy]

Nice to see you join in he hilarity ......

Nice selectiveness. I notice you didn't highlight "I have no idea what happened.."

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Nice selectiveness. I notice you didn't highlight "I have no idea what happened.."

So, because you don't know what happened, it means nobody else does? Erm, I don't subscribe to that. At all.

 

[BHAZiggy]

That wasn't my point. Perhaps some do. But some are making wild assumptions without evidence. The reply was specifically meant for BG who implied I'd done the same but I was simply offering a potential alternative to Charlie being sacked for some 'offence'. I was not suggesting it happened but putting forward the scenario to show that there is more than one possible reason that he's left the club.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

But Charlie has been " Investigated " in a thorough and professional way, obviously the result of which did not go in Charlie's favour.

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.

 

[Garage_Doors]

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.

I don't think the club have back down at all, they have done him a big favour but not revealing what has happened and allowed him the "mutual consent" option rather than the sacking option thus not damaging his potential future employment due to his long service.

 

[Rugrat]

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.

I don't think the club have back down at all, they have done him a big favour but not revealing what has happened and allowed him the "mutual consent" option rather than the sacking option thus not damaging his potential future employment due to his long service.

Polarised views but it could have been either of those

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I don't think the club have back down at all, they have done him a big favour but not revealing what has happened and allowed him the "mutual consent" option rather than the sacking option thus not damaging his potential future employment due to his long service.

I agree with that.

This is such a tough thing to discuss though, I have no doubt both sides have tried to spin it as best they can to make it seem that they have come out of it the better. Personally, I don't think it matters. The chapter is closed.

 

[drew]

I know what he's done for the last ten years. We all do. He deserves a testimonial for that. His suspension has resulted in him having no charges upheld and a big thanks from the club. There should at least be a mention of the status of his pre-arranged testimonial which, like everything else, we all just must assume the reasoning of.

Your conclusion about no charges is ridiculous. If that was the case then the club would have lifted the suspension exactly as they did with Tanno. He could then still have left on a mutual basis.

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

You make it sound like this is a criminal investigation and they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is, if anything, merely a civil matter where the burden of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities, ie on a scale of 1 to 100 that could 51 to 49!

"But he certainly wasn't innocent of the charges" - that's quite some claim you're making, considering you're scared to say what the charges actually are.

I find it quite unsavoury they've just left this suspension hanging without any conclusion to it, its smearing his character without having to prove anything.

No. The point is you said this leaving by mutual consent saves both sides face. It does not. The club have failed to prove Charlie's guilt, he is therefore, legally speaking, innocent. Keeping mystery around it leads to questions, rumours, innuendo, claims and counter claims that are far worse for both sides than releasing a statement confirming they found no evidence of wrong doing. Charlie has a cloud over his name because no one officially knows the result of the investigation, but they all know he was subject to one, and that it continued beyond gus's (was that also read out on national television?) so he hasn't really saved face. The club have the appearance of a sulky kid who couldn't prove his claim so just changed the subject hoping everyone just forgets what they said. That's not saving face.

A statement confirming no evidence found, gives closure so Charlie can save face, shows the club followed procedure and acted legally and the club can be proud of its professionalism and save face.

You don't know what the club have proved. The fact that the suspension wasn't lifted as it was with Tanno would suggest that there were grounds for keeping it in place. The outcome may well save face for both sides but we will probably never know for certain what was and what wasn't proved in the file.

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.

As I said above, why did they not lift the suspension as they did with Tanno then go their separate ways. I think some people's judgement is clouded by their understandable admiration for what CO has done for the club over nearly 14 years.

 

[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

Er he wasn't in court. I'd leave the legal analysis to those who know what they are talking about.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Er he wasn't in court. I'd leave the legal analysis to those who know what they are talking about.

Nobody in this thread then.

Poyet was dismissed. Legally. Hence the right to appeal, legally. Oatway has been treated in the same process, as per contract law. There's more to legal proceedings than court appearances, as I'm sure you know.

 

[clapham_gull]

Nobody in this thread then.

Poyet was dismissed. Legally. Hence the right to appeal, legally. Oatway has been treated in the same process, as per contract law. There's more to legal proceedings than court appearances, as I'm sure you know.

Yes, I'm married to a solicitor. What was it you did again ?