Shouldn't have thought so. Constructive dismissal is when they make your working conditions unbearable so you resign (and hence aren't eligible for a pay-off). Powell was sacked, so it doesn't apply.
I should think he has a cast-iron case on that basis, but given he was out of contract on June 30th and there will no doubt be a settlement there doesn't appear to be an obvious basis to sue for financial loss.
Shouldn't have thought so. Constructive dismissal is when they make your working conditions unbearable so you resign (and hence aren't eligible for a pay-off). Powell was sacked, so it doesn't apply.
I should think he has a cast-iron case on that basis, but given he was out of contract on June 30th and there will no doubt be a settlement there doesn't appear to be an obvious basis to sue for financial loss.
Exactly! With just three months' to run on his contract, he'll get paid what he was due and nothing more.
Which is legally, the correct thing.
Doing it to an employee on the other hand is ruthless, calculated and exactly why RD is worth 70m euros.
Surely he has some form of case around his reputation? The reason he was sacked was a forced change to his job description and responsibilities - all very well ref new contract but a breach of his current one.
I doubt he will say anything too controversial or go into specifics. As we have said before he is a gentleman and will also have an eye on future employment so slagging off previous owners won't help, as Curbs has found to his cost. Also, if he were that principled and was working under such intorerable circumstances would he not have walked. Some will say he didn't out of loyalty to his staff/players but they have moved on from it and Dyer remains, at least for the time being. I don't expect much from his official statement if only because he won't want to rock the boat and make things difficult for his successor at a Club he obviously loves.
Surely he has some form of case around his reputation? The reason he was sacked was a forced change to his job description and responsibilities - all very well ref new contract but a breach of his current one.
I wondered about this one. Presumably the LMA will take a very keen interest in this aspect?
Surely he has some form of case around his reputation? The reason he was sacked was a forced change to his job description and responsibilities - all very well ref new contract but a breach of his current one.
I wondered about this one. Presumably the LMA will take a very keen interest in this aspect?
Yes but how do you arrive a figure for something like that? As Airman says he (conveniently) only had a few months left on his contract, which will have been paid up most likely. We all know about the shenanigans going on but if Chris were silly enough to pursue any constructive dismissal claim Roland will just point at the league table.
I'm not expecting any fireworks from the LMA/Chrissy, more likely only that they are keeping a watching brief on the whole 'network' situation.
From what we know of the man, I imagine CP will be acting out of principle rather than concern for personal financial gain.
Sadly, he only has to look or speak to Curbs to see what can happen in these situations. CP is looking at maybe 20+ years in management and I would hate to see it cut short unnecessarily right at the start...plus of course there are other ways and means of getting the message out than a public dispute.
I'm expecting a bland statement now followed up with dribs and drabs coming out through the press, once he's back in work.
Surely he has some form of case around his reputation? The reason he was sacked was a forced change to his job description and responsibilities - all very well ref new contract but a breach of his current one.
It still remains to be proved there was a forced change though - there is talk of an e-mail telling him exactly which team he must play, but as yet no evidence to it's existence. If Roland was simply leaning on him to pick certain players, that is underhanded but not illegal - if he ever said 'Play this team, or you're fired' THEN I would imagine CP could point to a change of responsibilities.
As it stands, CP is unlikely to rock the boat too much I think, Curbs found out what happens to managers who try and take on the big money men, quite apart from which he will not desire upsetting an already wobbling set of players at Charlton.
Surely he has some form of case around his reputation? The reason he was sacked was a forced change to his job description and responsibilities - all very well ref new contract but a breach of his current one.
But he wasn't actually sacked was he? He was 'relieved of his position'. As long as this came with a paying up of his contract then there's no sacking, no case for unfair dismissal and tbh no damage to his reputation
Surely he has some form of case around his reputation? The reason he was sacked was a forced change to his job description and responsibilities - all very well ref new contract but a breach of his current one.
I wondered about this one. Presumably the LMA will take a very keen interest in this aspect?
Yes but how do you arrive a figure for something like that? As Airman says he (conveniently) only had a few months left on his contract, which will have been paid up most likely. We all know about the shenanigans going on but if Chris were silly enough to pursue any constructive dismissal claim Roland will just point at the league table.
I'm not expecting any fireworks from the LMA/Chrissy, more likely only that they are keeping a watching brief on the whole 'network' situation.
The last thing on my mind is the financial compensation aspect. We appear to have a fairly clear cut case of a football manager being sacked because he didn't play the squad that, on the Sunday morning before the game, the owner had instructed him to play. Chrissy Powell is enormously respected throughout football and it won't just be the LMA that takes notice. I think that the repercussions will be a lot wider, I'm not expecting fireworks, but a lot of quiet discussions will be going on. Perhaps some people think it is OK - he who pays the piper etc. That was certainly Simon Jordan's take on it. I just happen to believe that managers should be given a budget and then allowed to manage, it's what they have studied for and it's what they have experience in, unlike owners.
If RD's vision is different, and I still don't really know what his vision is, then he should have been honest with us from the outset. Wynn Grant had noted elsewhere that shock and awe seems to be RD's trademark, it's just not something I want to see at Charlton.
All this talk of compensation makes me wonder if if we've actually had to pay any to A.C.Milan. How did Riga manage to get out of his contract there so quickly?
I find it hard to believe RD literally told CP which players to pick for Sunday. More likely (and perfectly reasonably) he may have asked why he was not intending to pick any of the new players, to which CP may have replied (again perfectly reasonably) that he was picking the team he thought had the best chance to win the tie.
The key for RD was to assess whether CP was making decisions completely rationally and objectively, or whether he had a cross to bear and this was impacting his judgment (not just for Sunday but previously too).
Picking Church over Reza or Jackson over Ajadrevic is perfectly reasonable for tactical reasons or if Powell simply considers them better players (or more suited for the occasion), but if he dug in his heels and argued instead simply that they're "my players" then it would not be received well, and rightly so.
So, NYA, you find it hard to believe that RD told CP which players to pick, but you will happily speculate without any evidence whatsoever that part of the fault lies with CP for his departure? You can't have it both ways...
All this talk of compensation makes me wonder if if we've actually had to pay any to A.C.Milan. How did Riga manage to get out of his contract there so quickly?
Gab Marcotti mentioned on Twitter that he was only at Milan in a consultancy role, so I'd imagine there would be no contract and therefore no compensation
I think the bottom line is that RD wants to have complete trust in the people running his football teams. If he has that trust, I think he'll leave them alone to get on with the job. He obviously felt that Chris hadn't bought into his vision and was working against it rather than with it, therefore the trust didn't exist. Riga obviously has his trust, so he'll hopefully be allowed to pick the team unhindered.
So, NYA, you find it hard to believe that RD told CP which players to pick, but you will happily speculate without any evidence whatsoever that part of the fault lies with CP for his departure? You can't have it both ways...
What evidence is there that RD told CP who to pick? I don't just mean asked him questions about his team selection but actually directed him who to pick?
Comments
Which is legally, the correct thing.
Doing it to an employee on the other hand is ruthless, calculated and exactly why RD is worth 70m euros.
Cant see him slagging RD off to much.
I'm not expecting any fireworks from the LMA/Chrissy, more likely only that they are keeping a watching brief on the whole 'network' situation.
I hope Powell is honest about the reasons he was sacked. If he was dictated to about the team, I hope he says it.
SpartacusSeth PlumI'm expecting a bland statement now followed up with dribs and drabs coming out through the press, once he's back in work.
As it stands, CP is unlikely to rock the boat too much I think, Curbs found out what happens to managers who try and take on the big money men, quite apart from which he will not desire upsetting an already wobbling set of players at Charlton.
If RD's vision is different, and I still don't really know what his vision is, then he should have been honest with us from the outset. Wynn Grant had noted elsewhere that shock and awe seems to be RD's trademark, it's just not something I want to see at Charlton.
The key for RD was to assess whether CP was making decisions completely rationally and objectively, or whether he had a cross to bear and this was impacting his judgment (not just for Sunday but previously too).
Picking Church over Reza or Jackson over Ajadrevic is perfectly reasonable for tactical reasons or if Powell simply considers them better players (or more suited for the occasion), but if he dug in his heels and argued instead simply that they're "my players" then it would not be received well, and rightly so.
As I wrote on my blog newyorkaddick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/chris-p-chilly-beef.html#comments, some mutual compromise might have gone a long way (or looked at another way, I suspect fault did not lie entirely with RD).