Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Staff at Charlton being relieved of their duties
Comments
-
Always sad to see Charlton fans be let go from within the club, their passion is what makes the club what it is. If it wasn't for the likes of Groome, Leaburn and Everitt standing upto ESI and exposing them, who knows where we'd be.22
-
Are you able to expand on what might have changed for him during the short period since his arrival? Was it to do with sales targets or job remit?DubaiCAFC said:Something seriously wrong here, not sure Jokat doing or TS.. Maybe Jokat couldn't work under the forever moving goalpost!0 -
If it's not working out, which clearly it isn't for TS to make the decision, then you have to do what's right for the business.5
-
I could be wrong but assumed RA was using 2 years as an example. It's much easier to get rid of staff inside their probation period which is usually 3-6months. Assuming he's passed that, companies will usually make the position redundant and the fees due are usually 1 week pay for every year worked. To let go of the likes of Daniel would be rather cheap.Cafc43v3r said:
That said, if they've gone down the redundancy road they can't then re-post the same job straight away. They could of course change the job title and include an extra responsibility or two to get round that loophole if they wanted. Maybe they want to employ more low-hour contracts rather than full time staff for this kind of work?
All in the name of sustainability.1 -
Good guy Dan. Always very helpful. He has been very involved with the international groups I believe.3
-
You have very little rights inside the first 2 years unless your termination is due to some for of discrimination.Vfrf said:
I could be wrong but assumed RA was using 2 years as an example. It's much easier to get rid of staff inside their probation period which is usually 3-6months. Assuming he's passed that, companies will usually make the position redundant and the fees due are usually 1 week pay for every year worked. To let go of the likes of Daniel would be rather cheap.Cafc43v3r said:
That said, if they've gone down the redundancy road they can't then re-post the same job straight away. They could of course change the job title and include an extra responsibility or two to get round that loophole if they wanted. Maybe they want to employ more low-hour contracts rather than full time staff for this kind of work?
All in the name of sustainability.5 -
All jokes aside this is utterly shit for those poor people who have lost their jobs.AFKABartram said:
Am gutted to hear thisshirty5 said:
38 -
I don't know about Jokat, but certainly for Mumford that was the case.. Sounds like Jokat went because he told a certain someone to stop getting involved, in stuff they shouldn't be.. TS took exception to it!swordfish said:
Are you able to expand on what might have changed for him during the short period since his arrival? Was it to do with sales targets or job remit?DubaiCAFC said:Something seriously wrong here, not sure Jokat doing or TS.. Maybe Jokat couldn't work under the forever moving goalpost!6 -
Wonder how the "TS can do no wrong & it's HIS MONEY! " fans will spin this latest news ?RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
All jokes aside this is utterly shit for those poor people who have lost their jobs.AFKABartram said:
Am gutted to hear thisshirty5 said:
Just asking a question, of course.....8 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes agree. Up to 2 years very little employment protection. Not able to pay redundancy as a tax free sum - must be taxable but at discretion of the business. If it's an instant dismissal then they will pay in lieu of notice.Cafc43v3r said:
You have very little rights inside the first 2 years unless your termination is due to some for of discrimination.Vfrf said:
I could be wrong but assumed RA was using 2 years as an example. It's much easier to get rid of staff inside their probation period which is usually 3-6months. Assuming he's passed that, companies will usually make the position redundant and the fees due are usually 1 week pay for every year worked. To let go of the likes of Daniel would be rather cheap.Cafc43v3r said:
That said, if they've gone down the redundancy road they can't then re-post the same job straight away. They could of course change the job title and include an extra responsibility or two to get round that loophole if they wanted. Maybe they want to employ more low-hour contracts rather than full time staff for this kind of work?
All in the name of sustainability.0 -
Fanny Fanackapan said:
Wonder how the "TS can do no wrong & it's HIS MONEY! " fans will spin this latest news ?RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
All jokes aside this is utterly shit for those poor people who have lost their jobs.AFKABartram said:
Am gutted to hear thisshirty5 said:
Just asking a question, of course.....I think these people would have to exist first.Who has ever said TS can do no wrong?32 -
Dan Burke was the clubs Fans Liasion Officer, a role the club must have to be within the EFL rules. They may get around this by having the Fans Advisor (Lucy) cover that from the voluntary role2
-
No idea what’s going on behind the scenes, but got to feel for the people who have just lost their jobs, hope they can find another one soon.15
-
Is TS the certain someone?DubaiCAFC said:
I don't know about Jokat, but certainly for Mumford that was the case.. Sounds like Jokat went because he told a certain someone to stop getting involved, in stuff they shouldn't be.. TS took exception to it!swordfish said:
Are you able to expand on what might have changed for him during the short period since his arrival? Was it to do with sales targets or job remit?DubaiCAFC said:Something seriously wrong here, not sure Jokat doing or TS.. Maybe Jokat couldn't work under the forever moving goalpost!
If not who is?
Why can't people either say what they know or just not say it?16 -
RaelynnCovered End said:
Is TS the certain someone?DubaiCAFC said:
I don't know about Jokat, but certainly for Mumford that was the case.. Sounds like Jokat went because he told a certain someone to stop getting involved, in stuff they shouldn't be.. TS took exception to it!swordfish said:
Are you able to expand on what might have changed for him during the short period since his arrival? Was it to do with sales targets or job remit?DubaiCAFC said:Something seriously wrong here, not sure Jokat doing or TS.. Maybe Jokat couldn't work under the forever moving goalpost!
If not who is?
Why can't people either say what they know or just not say it?7 -
Maybe the penny has dropped with TS and he's realised that chasing international support and supporters from outside our core base doesn't work in L1.ChicagoAddick said:Good guy Dan. Always very helpful. He has been very involved with the international groups I believe.
Purely as a hypothetical, if the club is spending £250K pa on these staff wages and the net result so far was 50 new S/Ts, he's realising it won't work.
Please don't jump on the above it is only a very very rough for example.3 -
Because people lost there jobs? That happens outside of Charlton aswell! I will say that I feel for them and it is never nice to lose a job & I hope they find other work quickly.addick1956 said:RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
All jokes aside this is utterly shit for those poor people who have lost their jobs.AFKABartram said:
Am gutted to hear thisshirty5 said:
This club is beginning to smell a bit now plus it cannot create a nice climate to work in, something I never had to really contend with.
But we have no definitive context as too why they have lost there roles? Is it restructure? Or was is performance related....no one actually knows!! And if they do..they havent said.
This isnt a full defence of TS. I can genuinely believe that he would be difficult to work with.1 - Sponsored links:
-
If a company want to make a position redundant they have the right to do that whenever, 2 years or 20 years, it just alters the amount of compensation due.Cafc43v3r said:
You have very little rights inside the first 2 years unless your termination is due to some for of discrimination.Vfrf said:
I could be wrong but assumed RA was using 2 years as an example. It's much easier to get rid of staff inside their probation period which is usually 3-6months. Assuming he's passed that, companies will usually make the position redundant and the fees due are usually 1 week pay for every year worked. To let go of the likes of Daniel would be rather cheap.Cafc43v3r said:
That said, if they've gone down the redundancy road they can't then re-post the same job straight away. They could of course change the job title and include an extra responsibility or two to get round that loophole if they wanted. Maybe they want to employ more low-hour contracts rather than full time staff for this kind of work?
All in the name of sustainability.
In terms of simply 'letting them go' to replace them, then the company need to have a proven record of under-performing or as you say, some sort of HR grievance such as discrimination.0 -
So, Raelynn now involved in the hiring & firing ?Scoham said:
Is this a new role for her & does anyone have any further information ?4 -
not in the first two years of employment they don't. It's good practice to do so but not essential. Just as easy to get rid of staff after 18 months then 3 weeks in, just likely to be more expensive.Vfrf said:
If a company want to make a position redundant they have the right to do that whenever, 2 years or 20 years, it just alters the amount of compensation due.Cafc43v3r said:
You have very little rights inside the first 2 years unless your termination is due to some for of discrimination.Vfrf said:
I could be wrong but assumed RA was using 2 years as an example. It's much easier to get rid of staff inside their probation period which is usually 3-6months. Assuming he's passed that, companies will usually make the position redundant and the fees due are usually 1 week pay for every year worked. To let go of the likes of Daniel would be rather cheap.Cafc43v3r said:
That said, if they've gone down the redundancy road they can't then re-post the same job straight away. They could of course change the job title and include an extra responsibility or two to get round that loophole if they wanted. Maybe they want to employ more low-hour contracts rather than full time staff for this kind of work?
All in the name of sustainability.
In terms of simply 'letting them go' to replace them, then the company need to have a proven record of under-performing or as you say, some sort of HR grievance such as discrimination.3 -
Absolutely awful news for everyone affected.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Wonder how the "TS can do no wrong & it's HIS MONEY! " fans will spin this latest news ?RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
All jokes aside this is utterly shit for those poor people who have lost their jobs.AFKABartram said:
Am gutted to hear thisshirty5 said:
Just asking a question, of course.....If the people let go have commercial/marketing duties as has been hinted on here, the mistake made will have been to hire them in the first place, rather than letting them go today which was frankly inevitable.
A big bet made on ‘growing the brand’ which everyone but the owner expected to go south.9 -
They don't need to make the position redundant when the employees have less than 2 years service. They're not eligible for the "1 week pay per year" and employees cannot do anything about their dismissals.Vfrf said:
I could be wrong but assumed RA was using 2 years as an example. It's much easier to get rid of staff inside their probation period which is usually 3-6months. Assuming he's passed that, companies will usually make the position redundant and the fees due are usually 1 week pay for every year worked. To let go of the likes of Daniel would be rather cheap.Cafc43v3r said:
That said, if they've gone down the redundancy road they can't then re-post the same job straight away. They could of course change the job title and include an extra responsibility or two to get round that loophole if they wanted. Maybe they want to employ more low-hour contracts rather than full time staff for this kind of work?
All in the name of sustainability.0 -
If this is true it’s surely getting harder to defend. If my boss sent his wife to sack me I’d be fairly baffled as to what the arrangements were.Scoham said:6 -
I don't know anyone who has said "TS can do no wrong" so rather than have a sly dig can you present the facts about what is going on behind the scenes so we can all make an informed decision!Fanny Fanackapan said:
Wonder how the "TS can do no wrong & it's HIS MONEY! " fans will spin this latest news ?RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
All jokes aside this is utterly shit for those poor people who have lost their jobs.AFKABartram said:
Am gutted to hear thisshirty5 said:
Just asking a question, of course.....14 -
I’ve been one of those that’s given unwavering support to TS during the recent criticism.I’m now officially wavering4
-
As ever I'll wait for fuller facts to emerge30
