Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
He could be talking about Charlton... This football club werked incredibly hard yesterday from 9am to get this deal over the line. Very talented young squad. Free flowing football. Werked very hard in training today. Blah blah
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
So much for sticking to known facts.
I don't know what he got paid, if anything. I do know he is spinning this to make himself look good and I know you are falling for it.
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
So much for sticking to known facts.
I don't know what he got paid, if anything. I do know he is spinning this to make himself look good and I know you are falling for it.
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
If you don't know how are we supposed to
Large, I don’t think you read all of it (can’t blame you!). The last bit was just me asking about Airman and Chris Powell.
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
So much for sticking to known facts.
I don't know what he got paid, if anything. I do know he is spinning this to make himself look good and I know you are falling for it.
[Sorry, just saw your bold text]
Not sure he’s spinning anything is he? Are you saying he’s lying when he says he didn’t get a payoff?
I was only pointing out contract law. Some people said Karl wanted a payout. They’re the ones not dealing in known facts, not me. I just pointed out that he wouldn’t be entitled to one unless KM f*cked up the contracts.
I pointed out the probability that Duchâtelet asked for compensation if Karl walked out while he’s under contract. I’m surprised you don’t agree that that’s likely.
I did not endure at first hand KR's famous formation, which I gleaned from match reports became the good the bad and the ugly. However I came to enjoy the many KR interviews even the unofficial ones like the car park for example. It was kind of a mystery to solve or mixing a Times crossword mixed with a Sudoku puzzle simultaneously. Contradictions abounded with every other sentence.
He certainly livened up CL and put some enthusiasm and emotion back in to the club and for a while had it back on life support from its death bed.
On reflection, I suppose it didn't matter whether you liked him or loathed him you certainly couldn't ignore him the cheeky grinning scouser.
I was a critic from day one for taking our poison chalice position as I would have been even if it had been Pep G. Of course someone has to do it, he believed he could part the water by appeasing all factions of our fan base, whilst keeping Roly & the SMT happy. That belief was naive in the extreme and always going to end in disaster through the owners lack of ambition and backing.
He did make a good fist of it in my opinion as he carried a portion of the fan base in believing better times were ahead with the football evidently lightened from the dour gloom of what had proceeded it.
There are no winners in yet another managerial casualty destined for failure as they all and will be till this clown of an owner goes.
I think he had the best intentions for the club and saw it has his chance to make a forward career move. To be part of a big club, Charlton Athletic are in comparison to MK a big club, stadium, fan base, history. He recognised that about us and turned down another club for us a "basket case" as he put it. In his eyes he saw a big club with potential and wanted to be part of it.
I believe he bought in to what we were before Roland turned up with his side kick KM not what we have become and that he could get us back to pastures green. In some ways I think that is flattering that someone not induced into the Charlton family thought we were something special.
When the club is finally in new ownership and we trust far better hands, should Karl Robinson return to the Valley in charge of the opposition club I will warmly clap him.
Robinson has apparently said he didn’t ask for compensation. Maybe that’s correct. If he went further and said he’d offered to buy himself out of his contract then I might think that was decent. However, RD refused his resignation as I suspect Robinson knew he would because he was due some money from Oxford. Even RD isn’t silly enough to miss out on that. Therefore, Robinson’s claim that he didn’t ask for money for himself doesn’t tell the whole story does it!
Robinson has apparently said he didn’t ask for compensation. Maybe that’s correct. If he went further and said he’d offered to buy himself out of his contract then I might think that was decent. However, RD refused his resignation as I suspect Robinson knew he would because he was due some money from Oxford. Even RD isn’t silly enough to miss out on that. Therefore, Robinson’s claim that he didn’t ask for money for himself doesn’t tell the whole story does it!
Sorry, you’re saying RD required the compensation due because Robinson wanted to quit while under contract, but then what’s the other story you’re alluding to? Only asking for info, as I don’t understand what the other story might be. All parties would have known RD was due compensation. The argument used for him not getting any may have been a claim of constructive dismissal, which would negate the need for compensation to be paid. I expect it was those negotiations holding things up, don’t you? It’s also possible that part of the negotiations might have involved Ribinson agreeing to sign a further NDA. Only speculation of course.
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
If you don't know how are we supposed to
Large, I don’t think you read all of it (can’t blame you!). The last bit was just me asking about Airman and Chris Powell.
You put 'The bit at the end was just me chatting?'
Why would he get a payout? I've always said if you quit when you have a contract you would have to pay compensation, not the other way round. It suited some people to say he was after a payout, mentioning no names ;-) He wasn't after a payout. The delay was Oxford probably not wanting to pay Roland compensation.
@JamesSeed he also said he wasn't interested in the Oxford job.
Why do you swallow any of his spin let along all of it, hook, line and sinker.
See above. It's basic stuff Ben. Also, as you've said, Move on.
No, it's not basic employment law, you're wrong.
It is basic spin though and you keep falling for it.
He might not have "asked" for a pay-off (which is what he actually said not that he didn't get any) but he is such an unreliable witness you can't base anything on what he says.
He said the takeover was a long way off after Blackpool. That wasn't true either but we'd just lost to Blackpool so it diverted attention nicely which is what he wanted.
Spin, spin and more spin. Come on, you used to work in the media so you should know spin when you see it unless you just don't want to.
The facts don't stack up.
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
But he didn't walk out. He left by "mutual consent"
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
See above
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
See above
They agreed it, he didn't walk unilaterally otherwise he wouldn't have had to resign twice and then tell the press that he'd resigned twice.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
Compensation from Oxford? KR said nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
Yes, it is. He is a unreliable and biased witness and we've only heard from the defence.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
They are not "known facts" they are spin from Robinson that you are still falling for.
And I didn't dislike him, I just asked that he shut up and win games. He couldn't do either.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
What's that got to do with anything?
Big week next week.
Yes, they announced that he left by mutual consent, but that doesn't alter anything - that was a post contract settlement statement. Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down. He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
If you don't know how are we supposed to
Large, I don’t think you read all of it (can’t blame you!). The last bit was just me asking about Airman and Chris Powell.
You put 'The bit at the end was just me chatting?'
The ? infers you were not sure.
Oh I see.
I didn’t use a ? when I was talking about Robinson.
Robinson signed three players on loan in January. All wingers to fit his failing 4-3-2-1 system. Why not use one of those loans on a centre forward instead of moaning that we didn't have any?
Even some of the players wanted a switch to a two striker formation.
Can't get the link to work
By Richard Cawley
richard.cawley@slp.co.uk
Karl Robinson’s departure from Charlton Athletic this week was not a shock – because the signals had been coming out loud and clear for a number of weeks that he was deeply unhappy.
And the game-changer came on Tuesday when his two attempts to resign from his position were made public. Initially owner Roland Duchatelet had rejected them, but once they became public knowledge it made the Liverpudlian’s position pretty much untenable.
The fact that his desire to leave became public was only a matter of time. Too many people had been told.
What’s more, Robinson’s future had become the talk of the dressing room every bit as much as it was on the various messageboards. Action had to be taken, even if Duchatelet’s priority right now is to sell the South London club rather than be dragged into team matters.
But it is that lack of focus on the playing side which caused the major fault lines to open up.
Robinson felt aggrieved that after helping to clear the playing decks – Jorge Teixeira, Tony Watt, El-Hadji Ba, Cristian Ceballos and Lee Novak – he was unable to spend in January. He felt that the promise of investment if the club was in the promotion shake-up had been reneged upon.
That is the start, until you can get it to work, does take time
Don't think he was a good manager and his press conferences were rambling and needed subtitles, but cannot blame him for going when another job came up. No backing from Duchatalet and fairly obvious to us all he was gone when (if) the club was sold, so fair enough he took a lifeboat when it was offered.
Even some of the players wanted a switch to a two striker formation.
Can't get the link to work
Robinson felt aggrieved that after helping to clear the playing decks – Jorge Teixeira, Tony Watt, El-Hadji Ba, Cristian Ceballos and Lee Novak – he was unable to spend in January. He felt that the promise of investment if the club was in the promotion shake-up had been reneged upon.
Wasn't Lee Novak reputed to be on £6k per week?
Seems that was the major reason he was sold on the last day of the transfer window. And no proper replacement.
Robinson has apparently said he didn’t ask for compensation. Maybe that’s correct. If he went further and said he’d offered to buy himself out of his contract then I might think that was decent. However, RD refused his resignation as I suspect Robinson knew he would because he was due some money from Oxford. Even RD isn’t silly enough to miss out on that. Therefore, Robinson’s claim that he didn’t ask for money for himself doesn’t tell the whole story does it!
Sorry, you’re saying RD required the compensation due because Robinson wanted to quit while under contract, but then what’s the other story you’re alluding to? Only asking for info, as I don’t understand what the other story might be. All parties would have known RD was due compensation. The argument used for him not getting any may have been a claim of constructive dismissal, which would negate the need for compensation to be paid. I expect it was those negotiations holding things up, don’t you? It’s also possible that part of the negotiations might have involved Ribinson agreeing to sign a further NDA. Only speculation of course.
There is so much wrong with that analysis, from both an employment law and a football contract perspective, that I wouldn’t know where to start. Trust me, I’ve sacked two complete football management teams in the last five years and employment law in general and football matters relating to contracts could be my specialist subject on Mastermind! (I’m pretty useless at most other things).
He’s gone, his lunatic boss is going - let’s just be thankful for that.
Comments
1. You can't get compensation when you walk out on a contract.
2. You can get compensation when you are sacked, unless you've been in breach of contract.
3. You're entitled to compensation (if it's in the contract) if someone breaks that contract.
Do you really think Duchatelet wouldn't ask for compensation? The idea of him offering to pay compensation is absurd. Not in a million years.
This has nothing to do with what Karl said about the takeover. Or the fact that he talks too much.
You don't/didn't like him, and that's fine, but best stick to known facts when sticking the knife in.
BTW, I wonder if Airman is right about the aussies wanting SCP. That would have been immense!
Big week next week.
Duchatelet would have probably demanded full compensation when Karl resigned i.e. effectively turned him down.
He resigned again, probably with Oxford on board to sort out the compensation deal.
This myth that Robinson quit and demanded compensation is just that I suspect. A myth.
Best to move on. I'm looking forward to a new era very much.
The bit at the end was just me chatting?
How about he keeps away from them until after Sunday when Oxford have played their game?
This football club werked incredibly hard yesterday from 9am to get this deal over the line.
Very talented young squad.
Free flowing football.
Werked very hard in training today.
Blah blah
I don't know what he got paid, if anything. I do know he is spinning this to make himself look good and I know you are falling for it.
Which is what forums are all about.
No big deal.
Not sure he’s spinning anything is he? Are you saying he’s lying when he says he didn’t get a payoff?
I was only pointing out contract law. Some people said Karl wanted a payout. They’re the ones not dealing in known facts, not me. I just pointed out that he wouldn’t be entitled to one unless KM f*cked up the contracts.
I pointed out the probability that Duchâtelet asked for compensation if Karl walked out while he’s under contract. I’m surprised you don’t agree that that’s likely.
Maybe you could check with Katrien
All parties would have known RD was due compensation. The argument used for him not getting any may have been a claim of constructive dismissal, which would negate the need for compensation to be paid. I expect it was those negotiations holding things up, don’t you?
It’s also possible that part of the negotiations might have involved Ribinson agreeing to sign a further NDA. Only speculation of course.
The ? infers you were not sure.
I didn’t use a ? when I was talking about Robinson.
footydeck.com/a/14o8Y
Even some of the players wanted a switch to a two striker formation.
richard.cawley@slp.co.uk
Karl Robinson’s departure from Charlton Athletic this week was not a shock – because the signals had been coming out loud and clear for a number of weeks that he was deeply unhappy.
And the game-changer came on Tuesday when his two attempts to resign from his position were made public. Initially owner Roland Duchatelet had rejected them, but once they became public knowledge it made the Liverpudlian’s position pretty much untenable.
The fact that his desire to leave became public was only a matter of time. Too many people had been told.
What’s more, Robinson’s future had become the talk of the dressing room every bit as much as it was on the various messageboards. Action had to be taken, even if Duchatelet’s priority right now is to sell the South London club rather than be dragged into team matters.
But it is that lack of focus on the playing side which caused the major fault lines to open up.
Robinson felt aggrieved that after helping to clear the playing decks – Jorge Teixeira, Tony Watt, El-Hadji Ba, Cristian Ceballos and Lee Novak – he was unable to spend in January. He felt that the promise of investment if the club was in the promotion shake-up had been reneged upon.
That is the start, until you can get it to work, does take time
Thank you, Ross1.
Seems that was the major reason he was sold on the last day of the transfer window.
And no proper replacement.
He’s gone, his lunatic boss is going - let’s just be thankful for that.