I'm no fan of the regime, but they do have a point about CARD demanding accuracy from them - but not being aware that the disputed bonus was "discretionary", and therefore not guaranteed.
On the final point about "breakfasts and water" - there is no comment from them about food, and the inference is that the players are drinking (cheaper) tap water as opposed to bottled mineral water. Is this correct ?
As for investing £2.2m per year............well,.... Gomez will have seen you all square for a few years then !
I don't think that's been proven at all. The club claiming that the bonuses were discretionary does not mean that is the case.
@Davo55 Then it is quite simple to solve. Which party has written confirmation of the type of bonus offerred ? If nothing is in writing, then either side can describe the bonus as it suits them. RD will claim that the admin staff are just making trouble. If CARD has evidence to support the staff claim, then (IMO) it should be made public to embarass RD.
The staff have documentation. They are acting on their own behalf not via CARD and it’s not unreasonable they proceed in the way they choose, rather than seeing it simply as an opportunity to embarrass RD.
Not unreasonable to go that route, but then how come.............
This letter was received at 4.35pm and was Tweeted out by CARD at 5.53pm
The staff send a letter to RD - and CARD have it within 80 minutes, yet the staff have no wish to embarrass RD or get CARD to fight their bonus battle.
Either someone does or the information (above), taken from the press release is false.
I'm no fan of the regime, but they do have a point about CARD demanding accuracy from them - but not being aware that the disputed bonus was "discretionary", and therefore not guaranteed.
On the final point about "breakfasts and water" - there is no comment from them about food, and the inference is that the players are drinking (cheaper) tap water as opposed to bottled mineral water. Is this correct ?
As for investing £2.2m per year............well,.... Gomez will have seen you all square for a few years then !
I don't think that's been proven at all. The club claiming that the bonuses were discretionary does not mean that is the case.
@Davo55 Then it is quite simple to solve. Which party has written confirmation of the type of bonus offerred ? If nothing is in writing, then either side can describe the bonus as it suits them. RD will claim that the admin staff are just making trouble. If CARD has evidence to support the staff claim, then (IMO) it should be made public to embarass RD.
The staff have documentation. They are acting on their own behalf not via CARD and it’s not unreasonable they proceed in the way they choose, rather than seeing it simply as an opportunity to embarrass RD.
Not unreasonable to go that route, but then how come.............
This letter was received at 4.35pm and was Tweeted out by CARD at 5.53pm
The staff send a letter to RD - and CARD have it within 80 minutes, yet the staff have no wish to embarrass RD or get CARD to fight their bonus battle.
Either someone does or the information (above), taken from the press release is false.
I don't know but I assume the staff sent it to the media including CARD.
No one said the staff have no wish to embarrass Duchatelet (although he needs little help from others with that) but that they're acting in their own way to get what is due to them, that is their primary motive, imho.
It is massive on the PC which is the only one i care about.
Have removed most of the formatting...It didn't look that big on my screen, but then I do use quite a high resolution monitor so all writing seems fairly small... Having checked on phone it was maybe a tad large on the important message.
So if I offer someone a bonus based on them achieving a target and they achieve that target and I say I've changed my mind because I'm a bit skint this week. Is that breech of contract or just a complete lack of morals?
Both. For staff to establish the existence of a bonus commitment, they are probably going to need some documentation, minutes of a meeting, email, something. Would the existence of same make "the ownership" any more likely to honour any such offer? We all know the answer to that one. When his chickens come home to roost, I hope they shit all over him.
I'm no fan of the regime, but they do have a point about CARD demanding accuracy from them - but not being aware that the disputed bonus was "discretionary", and therefore not guaranteed.
On the final point about "breakfasts and water" - there is no comment from them about food, and the inference is that the players are drinking (cheaper) tap water as opposed to bottled mineral water. Is this correct ?
As for investing £2.2m per year............well,.... Gomez will have seen you all square for a few years then !
I don't think that's been proven at all. The club claiming that the bonuses were discretionary does not mean that is the case.
@Davo55 Then it is quite simple to solve. Which party has written confirmation of the type of bonus offerred ? If nothing is in writing, then either side can describe the bonus as it suits them. RD will claim that the admin staff are just making trouble. If CARD has evidence to support the staff claim, then (IMO) it should be made public to embarass RD.
The staff have documentation. They are acting on their own behalf not via CARD and it’s not unreasonable they proceed in the way they choose, rather than seeing it simply as an opportunity to embarrass RD.
Not unreasonable to go that route, but then how come.............
This letter was received at 4.35pm and was Tweeted out by CARD at 5.53pm
The staff send a letter to RD - and CARD have it within 80 minutes, yet the staff have no wish to embarrass RD or get CARD to fight their bonus battle.
Either someone does or the information (above), taken from the press release is false.
CARD wasn’t first to publish the staff letter. This Guardian story is timed at 17.40, for example:
There are others, but it’s more difficult to track the times. Perhaps the “investigation” missed that. Or perhaps it was inconvenient to the line Duchatelet wanted to spin.
Yes, the staff went public to embarrass Duchatelet and put pressure on him, but that is not the same thing as their main objective being to embarrass RD for its own sake or to drive him out of the club.
I wasn’t involved in the release of the letter so I can’t clarify any further what happened, but it was not a CARD initiative. It came from the staff.
People might also want to consider that if only a minority of staff at The Valley had been behind the letter, the rest might have made known their dissent by now.
I do love Roland in a way. The true thrust of that article, other than the fact they're all out to get him apparently, is Roland's interpretation of discretionary. Normal people interpret it as 'if certain targets are met'. Roland interprets it as 'if I feel like it'. Hilarious!
Does anyone know if CARD plan tp respond in any way to this latest communication from the club given I assume RD is likely to bring this up in his meeting with the EFL?
If nothing else it would be useful to highlight the inconsistency between the comment in the statement that this is "a significant blow to the reputation of the club and owner and to the ability of the owner to sell the club" when they club have said several times now that they have agreed a price with two potential purchasers.
Seldom can a pronouncement purporting to clarify something offered absolutely no clarity whatsoever. Just what are the club trying to clarify?
Someone appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term discretionary bonus.
The definition of a discretionary bonus is a monetary payment in respect of rewarding performance at the sole discretion of the employer which does not affect the pay rate of the employee.
However it cannot by definition be a pre agreed incentive based figure in relation to meeting specific performance targets.
On the basis of any incentive or measurable target it is not at the sole discretion of the employer because the employee has to perform to certain targets to be eligible for the bonus.
Whether the staff member meets those targets is not at the sole discretion of the employer.
Seemingly based on the clubs own apparent acknowledgement of a bonus paid in earlier years relating to specific targets being met and the convoluted financial explanation for its non payment this year suggests the club and its officials have a mind bogglingly limited understanding of English or English employment law.
So the club statements whoever the author not only does not offer any further clarity it appears to contradict its former statements on the matter.
As such the relevant staff appear to have a case in law. That it has not as yet proceeded to specific legal action leaves the reader, based on the entire tone of this communication, to draw their own conclusions as to the nature of the working environment.
Whether in light of continued employment it is worth staff pursuing the matter is a matter entirely for each individual staff member.
I concede taking the matter to the media may have been unfortunate but I am not privy to the working environment in which members of staff are required to work.
That the club for some reason chooses to officially re air its dirty laundry to the public media is truly bizarre. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of in the entire sorry mess.
The references to CARD border on paranoia and define the club mentality. If a member of staff has chosen to represent staff in making a statement directly to the owner, in response to the clubs own formal public denial of an outstanding bonus liability, it argues to the distrust between whatever Senior Management remains and club staff, while emphasing the remoteness of said owner.
That it was then placed in the public domain over an hour later is supposed to mean what exactly? That the whole issue is fabricated by CARD? How can it be? The club in its own public statement has confirmed a staff dispute exists.
If you choose to make public statements then you can but expect a public response. CARD has merely repeated information already in the public domain and commented appropriately.
Is it damaging to the takeover process? Possibly but only to the point that future investors may consider the future employment of existing senior staff who I strongly recommend having dug a hole for themselves stop digging.
What in gods name has any of this to do with the quite frankly feeble cessation of bottled water to academy players?
That academy players have been supplied with refillable water bottles does not mean the withdrawal of the previous supplied water bottles is factually incorrect. It confirms it is true. That the club assert it was actually an environment choice poses the question as to whether senior playing staff are still supplied with bottled water and if so in view of the environmental stance why?
To add to the confusion the club extraordinarily refers to the withdrawal of breakfast facilities for academy players without any comment at all.
Thus we have no clarity at all beyond being left with the conclusion the Senior Management are indeed completely inept, the nature of their dialogue with their staff inappropriate and their interaction with the owner questionable.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the staff dispute on what possible basis would you seek to re-air your dirty laundry in public. Why refresh every bodies memories over the issue? There appears to be no concept of the industry landscape.
Once in the public eye every decision and action will be subject to scrutiny and comment. It comes with the territory. Players, coaches and managers are subject to such scrutiny and comment every week. Beyond mandatory media conferences how often do they all issue public statements or press releases?
Equally whoever released the statement has no understanding of the mood message around the club where we have Bowyer and his squad establishing a base and momentum in reengaging with supporters by their approach, endeavour and performances on the pitch.
There is no PR battle to be won. It was lost at the point key decisions were made re staff bonuses, water and breakfast facilities. As an executive stand by your decisions. They are negative decisions. It comes with the territory. You just take the lumps and bumps and get on with it.
In truth these are internal matters. There was only one public comment from the club required which was very simply;
"We acknowledge the concerns of some members of staff relating to bonuses and will continue to work to address those concerns. We similarly respect the issues raised by the changes to catering facilities and will continue to review our policies in line with continuing financial disciplines.
You will appreciate these matters are subject to defined confidential internal processes and procedures. The club will NOT THEREFORE BE ISSUING ANY FURTHER STATEMENT on these matters at this time."
The incompetence and muddled thinking on display is breathtaking.
Maybe our beloved owner is simply doing his best to push a deal through, I mean, it's hardly likely that he'd be able to seek remuneration on the basis of goodwill....
All that needed to be said by the club was your final paragraph:
"We acknowledge the concerns of some members of staff relating to bonuses and will continue to work to address those concerns. We similarly respect the issues raised by the changes to catering facilities and will continue to review our policies in line with continuing financial disciplines.
You will appreciate these matters are subject to defined confidential internal processes and procedures. The club will NOT THEREFORE BE ISSUING ANY FURTHER STATEMENT on these matters at this time."
The incompetence and muddled thinking on display is breathtaking.
But no we get successive Tuesday missives, along with the bizarre "Owner" page on the website:
Seldom can a pronouncement purporting to clarify something offered absolutely no clarity whatsoever. Just what are the club trying to clarify?
Someone appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term discretionary bonus.
The definition of a discretionary bonus is a monetary payment in respect of rewarding performance at the sole discretion of the employer which does not affect the pay rate of the employee.
However it cannot by definition be a pre agreed incentive based figure in relation to meeting specific performance targets.
On the basis of any incentive or measurable target it is not at the sole discretion of the employer because the employee has to perform to certain targets to be eligible for the bonus.
Whether the staff member meets those targets is not at the sole discretion of the employer.
Seemingly based on the clubs own apparent acknowledgement of a bonus paid in earlier years relating to specific targets being met and the convoluted financial explanation for its non payment this year suggests the club and its officials have a mind bogglingly limited understanding of English or English employment law.
So the club statements whoever the author not only does not offer any further clarity it appears to contradict its former statements on the matter.
As such the relevant staff appear to have a case in law. That it has not as yet proceeded to specific legal action leaves the reader, based on the entire tone of this communication, to draw their own conclusions as to the nature of the working environment.
Whether in light of continued employment it is worth staff pursuing the matter is a matter entirely for each individual staff member.
I concede taking the matter to the media may have been unfortunate but I am not privy to the working environment in which members of staff are required to work.
That the club for some reason chooses to officially re air its dirty laundry to the public media is truly bizarre. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of in the entire sorry mess.
The references to CARD border on paranoia and define the club mentality. If a member of staff has chosen to represent staff in making a statement directly to the owner, in response to the clubs own formal public denial of an outstanding bonus liability, it argues to the distrust between whatever Senior Management remains and club staff, while emphasing the remoteness of said owner.
That it was then placed in the public domain over an hour later is supposed to mean what exactly? That the whole issue is fabricated by CARD? How can it be? The club in its own public statement has confirmed a staff dispute exists.
If you choose to make public statements then you can but expect a public response. CARD has merely repeated information already in the public domain and commented appropriately.
Is it damaging to the takeover process? Possibly but only to the point that future investors may consider the future employment of existing senior staff who I strongly recommend having dug a hole for themselves stop digging.
What in gods name has any of this to do with the quite frankly feeble cessation of bottled water to academy players?
That academy players have been supplied with refillable water bottles does not mean the withdrawal of the previous supplied water bottles is factually incorrect. It confirms it is true. That the club assert it was actually an environment choice poses the question as to whether senior playing staff are still supplied with bottled water and if so in view of the environmental stance why?
To add to the confusion the club extraordinarily refers to the withdrawal of breakfast facilities for academy players without any comment at all.
Thus we have no clarity at all beyond being left with the conclusion the Senior Management are indeed completely inept, the nature of their dialogue with their staff inappropriate and their interaction with the owner questionable.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the staff dispute on what possible basis would you seek to re-air your dirty laundry in public. Why refresh every bodies memories over the issue? There appears to be no concept of the industry landscape.
Once in the public eye every decision and action will be subject to scrutiny and comment. It comes with the territory. Players, coaches and managers are subject to such scrutiny and comment every week. Beyond mandatory media conferences how often do they all issue public statements or press releases?
Equally whoever released the statement has no understanding of the mood message around the club where we have Bowyer and his squad establishing a base and momentum in reengaging with supporters by their approach, endeavour and performances on the pitch.
There is no PR battle to be won. It was lost at the point key decisions were made re staff bonuses, water and breakfast facilities. As an executive stand by your decisions. They are negative decisions. It comes with the territory. You just take the lumps and bumps and get on with it.
In truth these are internal matters. There was only one public comment from the club required which was very simply;
"We acknowledge the concerns of some members of staff relating to bonuses and will continue to work to address those concerns. We similarly respect the issues raised by the changes to catering facilities and will continue to review our policies in line with continuing financial disciplines.
You will appreciate these matters are subject to defined confidential internal processes and procedures. The club will NOT THEREFORE BE ISSUING ANY FURTHER STATEMENT on these matters at this time."
The incompetence and muddled thinking on display is breathtaking.
Comments
@Henry Irving
Not unreasonable to go that route, but then how come.............
This letter was received at 4.35pm and was Tweeted out by CARD at 5.53pm
The staff send a letter to RD - and CARD have it within 80 minutes, yet the staff have no wish to embarrass RD or get CARD to fight their bonus battle.
Either someone does or the information (above), taken from the press release is false.
No one said the staff have no wish to embarrass Duchatelet (although he needs little help from others with that) but that they're acting in their own way to get what is due to them, that is their primary motive, imho.
I'll remove/amend the formatting.
For staff to establish the existence of a bonus commitment, they are probably going to need some documentation, minutes of a meeting, email, something.
Would the existence of same make "the ownership" any more likely to honour any such offer? We all know the answer to that one.
When his chickens come home to roost, I hope they shit all over him.
Not even on a 75" screen.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/81631/ex-commercial-hen-rescue-new-homes-needed/p2
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/aug/22/charlton-staff-extreme-disappointment-duchatelet-uturn-bonuses?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
There are others, but it’s more difficult to track the times. Perhaps the “investigation” missed that. Or perhaps it was inconvenient to the line Duchatelet wanted to spin.
Yes, the staff went public to embarrass Duchatelet and put pressure on him, but that is not the same thing as their main objective being to embarrass RD for its own sake or to drive him out of the club.
I wasn’t involved in the release of the letter so I can’t clarify any further what happened, but it was not a CARD initiative. It came from the staff.
People might also want to consider that if only a minority of staff at The Valley had been behind the letter, the rest might have made known their dissent by now.
But The Guardian as well as the EFL are all part of CARD
And their only purpose is to get Airman Henry-Cardigan their job back.
{...huh...}
BBC
Independent
Sky
Talk Sport
Jim White
Jimmy White
Barry White
All CARD
{…Huh…}
Also there are plenty of Russian oligarchs in the mix as well as an independent trust.
If nothing else it would be useful to highlight the inconsistency between the comment in the statement that this is "a significant blow to the reputation of the club and owner and to the ability of the owner to sell the club" when they club have said several times now that they have agreed a price with two potential purchasers.
Someone appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term discretionary bonus.
The definition of a discretionary bonus is a monetary payment in respect of rewarding performance at the sole discretion of the employer which does not affect the pay rate of the employee.
However it cannot by definition be a pre agreed incentive based figure in relation to meeting specific performance targets.
On the basis of any incentive or measurable target it is not at the sole discretion of the employer because the employee has to perform to certain targets to be eligible for the bonus.
Whether the staff member meets those targets is not at the sole discretion of the employer.
Seemingly based on the clubs own apparent acknowledgement of a bonus paid in earlier years relating to specific targets being met and the convoluted financial explanation for its non payment this year suggests the club and its officials have a mind bogglingly limited understanding of English or English employment law.
So the club statements whoever the author not only does not offer any further clarity it appears to contradict its former statements on the matter.
As such the relevant staff appear to have a case in law. That it has not as yet proceeded to specific legal action leaves the reader, based on the entire tone of this communication, to draw their own conclusions as to the nature of the working environment.
Whether in light of continued employment it is worth staff pursuing the matter is a matter entirely for each individual staff member.
I concede taking the matter to the media may have been unfortunate but I am not privy to the working environment in which members of staff are required to work.
That the club for some reason chooses to officially re air its dirty laundry to the public media is truly bizarre. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of in the entire sorry mess.
The references to CARD border on paranoia and define the club mentality. If a member of staff has chosen to represent staff in making a statement directly to the owner, in response to the clubs own formal public denial of an outstanding bonus liability, it argues to the distrust between whatever Senior Management remains and club staff, while emphasing the remoteness of said owner.
That it was then placed in the public domain over an hour later is supposed to mean what exactly? That the whole issue is fabricated by CARD? How can it be? The club in its own public statement has confirmed a staff dispute exists.
If you choose to make public statements then you can but expect a public response. CARD has merely repeated information already in the public domain and commented appropriately.
Is it damaging to the takeover process? Possibly but only to the point that future investors may consider the future employment of existing senior staff who I strongly recommend having dug a hole for themselves stop digging.
What in gods name has any of this to do with the quite frankly feeble cessation of bottled water to academy players?
That academy players have been supplied with refillable water bottles does not mean the withdrawal of the previous supplied water bottles is factually incorrect. It confirms it is true. That the club assert it was actually an environment choice poses the question as to whether senior playing staff are still supplied with bottled water and if so in view of the environmental stance why?
To add to the confusion the club extraordinarily refers to the withdrawal of breakfast facilities for academy players without any comment at all.
Thus we have no clarity at all beyond being left with the conclusion the Senior Management are indeed completely inept, the nature of their dialogue with their staff inappropriate and their interaction with the owner questionable.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the staff dispute on what possible basis would you seek to re-air your dirty laundry in public. Why refresh every bodies memories over the issue? There appears to be no concept of the industry landscape.
Once in the public eye every decision and action will be subject to scrutiny and comment. It comes with the territory. Players, coaches and managers are subject to such scrutiny and comment every week. Beyond mandatory media conferences how often do they all issue public statements or press releases?
Equally whoever released the statement has no understanding of the mood message around the club where we have Bowyer and his squad establishing a base and momentum in reengaging with supporters by their approach, endeavour and performances on the pitch.
There is no PR battle to be won. It was lost at the point key decisions were made re staff bonuses, water and breakfast facilities. As an executive stand by your decisions. They are negative decisions. It comes with the territory. You just take the lumps and bumps and get on with it.
In truth these are internal matters. There was only one public comment from the club required which was very simply;
"We acknowledge the concerns of some members of staff relating to bonuses and will continue to work to address those concerns. We similarly respect the issues raised by the changes to catering facilities and will continue to review our policies in line with continuing financial disciplines.
You will appreciate these matters are subject to defined confidential internal processes and procedures. The club will NOT THEREFORE BE ISSUING ANY FURTHER STATEMENT on these matters at this time."
The incompetence and muddled thinking on display is breathtaking.
All that needed to be said by the club was your final paragraph:
"We acknowledge the concerns of some members of staff relating to bonuses and will continue to work to address those concerns. We similarly respect the issues raised by the changes to catering facilities and will continue to review our policies in line with continuing financial disciplines.
You will appreciate these matters are subject to defined confidential internal processes and procedures. The club will NOT THEREFORE BE ISSUING ANY FURTHER STATEMENT on these matters at this time."
The incompetence and muddled thinking on display is breathtaking.
But no we get successive Tuesday missives, along with the bizarre "Owner" page on the website:
https://www.cafc.co.uk/club/club-overview/ownership
Linking to a largely unread website where he has written some article since 2012
Enjoy!