Charlie Oatway leaves 'by mutual consent'

[BigGully]

Gutted to see Charlie go. The new management team meant this was always likely I suppose - investigation or not.
But for such a loyal and popular employee of the club to be denied his testimonial - within his testimonial year too - is disgusting. I really hope he gets his special day and a proper send off one day. And let's not forget that he was due to give half the proceeds of his testimonial to Albion in the Community.

Good luck and thanks Charlie.

But unless you know what he has done or not done then you cannot possible conclude what he does or does not deserve.

 

[Oscar]

But unless you know what he has done or not done then you cannot possible conclude what he does or does not deserve.

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.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

He has been found guilty by a kangaroo court and sacked. And what with El Abd off to Barnsley and Kanchelskis seen on the training ground, it's the end of a bad week for the club.

 

[Oscar]

He has been found guilty by a kangaroo court and sacked. And what with El Abd off to Barnsley and Kanchelskis seen on the training ground, it's the end of a bad week for the club.

And no Harvey's. Don't forget that.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I don't think a chap with 30 years left before reaching the retirement age deserves a big pay day, particularly when he has been earning more than the vast majority of our crowd, but that's just me.

 

[Beach Hut]

I don't think a chap with 30 years left before reaching the retirement age deserves a big pay day, particularly when he has been earning more than the vast majority of our crowd, but that's just me.

No it is me as well, this big jolly payout business for loyalty is totally wrong.

I wonder if Lenny Rider is starting to plan one for Adam El Abd ?

What ever happens I am out

 

[Ninja Elephant]

If they can't prove guilt then he should be assumed innocent, no? All through the process people have been talking about suspension being a neutral act, that it is process. An allegation made, Charlie suspended pending an investigation, the investigation into Charlie proves nothing, ergo, he is innocent, suspension lifted, the club can hold its head high and proudly trump following procedure, and accepting a basic tenet of law in this country. Why do they need to not admit the investigation was unable to prove he was guilty to save face? It's not like they have been arrogantly stating in public they know his guilt and will prove it and then everyone will know they were right. They've been very professional about everything with respect to Charlie.

Did they lose face over taricco's suspension being lifted?

I understand your point, and you make it very well. But I don't agree. In this case, allegations were made and investigated. The word "innocent" shouldn't be used because although they may have been unable to prove his guilt to such an extent they could dismiss him, it doesn't mean the original allegations were false or incorrect.

It just goes to show how difficult things can be to prove in the eyes of the law.

 

[Working class pride]

I don't think a chap with 30 years left before reaching the retirement age deserves a big pay day, particularly when he has been earning more than the vast majority of our crowd, but that's just me.

Agreed. When my employer gives me a testimonial then I might think about turning up to a footballers testimonial... and I wish the PFA all the very best in trying to talk my employer into giving its employees testimonials. The rubbish the PFA/LMA spout is so rarely challenged as its trendy to "be a football person".

 

[clapham_gull]

I don't think a chap with 30 years left before reaching the retirement age deserves a big pay day, particularly when he has been earning more than the vast majority of our crowd, but that's just me.

No me too.

 

[Acker79]

I understand your point, and you make it very well. But I don't agree. In this case, allegations were made and investigated. The word "innocent" shouldn't be used because although they may have been unable to prove his guilt to such an extent they could dismiss him, it doesn't mean the original allegations were false or incorrect.

It just goes to show how difficult things can be to prove in the eyes of the law.

But if they dismiss him and are unable to prove cause, they are in the wrong, and any appeal (at least in court) will find in Charlie's favour. If they did that, they would certainly lose face. They don't lose face by publicly revealing the investigation did not find evidence of wrong doing so the suspension is lifted (worded carefully like that allows for them to not have to publicly declare him innocent, but accurately reflects the outcome, is professional and legal). They can still then do a leaving by mutual consent press release.

I don't care if they (and evidently you, though once again I point out how many different conflicting stories have been floated - gus turned down an offer, the club never even made an offer (days apart I the argus, I doubt they print just anything a man down the pub said, I'm sure they tout their sources were solid in both instances), gus did nothing wrong, the club have him bang to rights, etc all by reliable, highly placed sources close to the situation) still believe he was wrong, if they can't prove his guilt they should treat him as innocent, or they put themselves at risk, and that would be more embarrassing than a 'found no evidence of guilt' press release.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

But if they dismiss him and are unable to prove cause, they are in the wrong, and any appeal (at least in court) will find in Charlie's favour. If they did that, they would certainly lose face. They don't lose face by publicly revealing the investigation did not find evidence of wrong doing so the suspension is lifted (worded carefully like that allows for them to not have to publicly declare him innocent, but accurately reflects the outcome, is professional and legal). They can still then do a leaving by mutual consent press release.

I don't care if they (and evidently you, though once again I point out how many different conflicting stories have been floated - gus turned down an offer, the club never even made an offer (days apart I the argus, I doubt they print just anything a man down the pub said, I'm sure they tout their sources were solid in both instances), gus did nothing wrong, the club have him bang to rights, etc all by reliable, highly placed sources close to the situation) still believe he was wrong, if they can't prove his guilt they should treat him as innocent, or they put themselves at risk, and that would be more embarrassing than a 'found no evidence of guilt' press release.

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

 

[Rugrat]

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.

It may well be that the "mutual consent" and the obvious pay off was actually the club recognising his loyalty and service, just perhaps? None of us know, but maybe they did have enough to hang Charlie but these things are always a long and drawn out hassle and they also know what a favourite he was. So perhaps they have done the decent thing?

Fact is Charlie has agreed the deal and in doing so it's likely he's not too unhappy. Let's see where he ends up ... we may all be surprised!!

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

No. It isn't public record. There are two separate charges, and I think a bit of reading will reveal what they were. I know of one, the other I have read about on here. The one I know about, for a fact, is what I speak of. I do not know what was said, obviously, but I do know what one of the charges was and I am reliably informed they simply couldn't prove it. Allegedly, a LOT of people were interviewed about it but they couldn't legally come to a conclusion.

How can you state anything as a fact, unless you where there and saw it/heard it with your own eyes. Unless you are one of the three suspended, the CO or Chairman, that is one hell of a statement to make! Okay. Just say one thing. The one you know of as a "fact". Does it relate to what Poyet is alleged to have done? Or do you think Charlies case was separate to the Poyet/Tanno suspensions. I'm 99% certain of what happened. The reason being I have two unrelated sources I get my Albion news from, which in the past have been correct on nearly everything, and they both say the same thing on the latest saga. And its very very unspectacular what happened. I think people are looking for some great story to come out of all this, and it simply isn't there.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Fact is Charlie has agreed the deal and in doing so it's likely he's not too unhappy. Let's see where he ends up ... we may all be surprised!!

Well if he doesn't end up as part of "team Poyet" when Gus finds another job, providing he doesn't get set up before that (and I have doubts anyone will take on Poyet), then my view of Poyet will have gone down another notch or two, and my view of Poyet has already been in the basement for the past year, so I'll need to find a shovel for it to go any lower!!

 

[Kalimantan 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

"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.

 

[Rugrat]

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.

I'd go along with that. In doing the deal I'd think it odd if Charlie didn't say something like "OK I'll agree to go by mutual consent in return for £xxx as long as a public announcement that the reasons for suspension were unsubstantiated" or similar. Equally I can't imagine for one second the club would have had issue with that assuming of course they did have a strong argument to the contrary.

I've been involved in several high profile compromises (in Finance) and I've seen all sorts of garbage agreed as to the reason for leaving and what reference will be provided. Once the financial side is sorted the "employer" just wants shot and is generally pretty ambivalent about anything else

 

[Hungry Joe]

All the best Chas, you complete nutter.

 

[Don Tmatter]

I see that Oatway Jr is having a trial with Portsmouth

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Yep. Agree with that 100 percent.

Just like to thank Charlie for everything he did during his time at the club.

When we came back to Brighton, he was, along with Danny Cullip, very much responsible for building a togetherness amongst the team, and forging a bond amongst the team that helped us greatly whilst we were at Withdean.

I will always remember his part in great nights such as Swindon and Chterfield.

It just seems that type of character is no longer wanted by Brand Brighton.

shame, and good Luck Charlie.

 

[grubbyhands]

Just read this. Always will Remember Charlie as someone who who gave his everything for the club. Sad it ended this way, but with a total absence of information we are playing blind here. Good luck Charlie in whatever you do, thank you for all you have done for us.

Pretty much this. One day it will all come out in the wash but,until then,we are all to a greater or lesser degree guessing. That said whoever gets Charlie will get one of the best. All the very best Charlie for (almost) all you have done for us,absolute legend and all round funny bloke.