Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Powell to make statement via LMA **STATEMENT ON PAGE 4**

12467

Comments

  • it wasn't all players it was one the goalie , lets see who is in goal on sat

    Who was in goal on Wednesday?
  • I reckon they had a play with him and his tactics/team for Sunday, and only kept him past that due to the fans that had travelled down. Something didn't quite feel CP about the day.. he didn't look himself either. And what Ansah had tweeted (his best friend).. something weren't right for the day let alone the past/future.
  • it wasn't all players it was one the goalie , lets see who is in goal on sat

    I'm pretty damn sure it won't be Hamer on Saturday.
  • boggzy said:

    it wasn't all players it was one the goalie , lets see who is in goal on sat

    I'm pretty damn sure it won't be Hamer on Saturday.
    I said that on Wednesday night, and was 100% sure until i saw the team. I can not honestly see our current best keeper being left out for what is a very big game regardless of it being a London Derby.
  • 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.

    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).

    I think you have it spot on NYA. If CP had shown any signs of buying into RD's plan he would still have his job.
  • .

    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.
    Sorry, not making myself very clear. I'm not for one moment suggesting CP would be concerned with increasing any financial settlement but rather would only be taking any sort of unfair dismissal case to make his point. I think he may have a very, very good case but personally I think he would be better off keeping his powder dry right now.
  • Jodaius said:

    it wasn't all players it was one the goalie , lets see who is in goal on sat

    Who was in goal on Wednesday?



    dyer picked the team weds
  • Let's not forget CP headed up the PFA in the past - the players' equivalent of the LMA. If he thinks a dangerous precedent could be set, then he will feel duty-bound to do something about it - not for himself, but for others in the union.
  • edited March 2014
    LuckyReds said:

    PL54 said:

    LoOkOuT said:

    As usual @PL54, it looks like you've uncovered something that no one else thought of, including Powell, nor anyone at the LMA. Good job! Right up there with some of your all time great comments.

    Go on, please give me my top 5.
    You've already replied to that once mate, with "Tetchy".

    Have you spent 4 hours thinking up a better reply just to come back and give it a second go or something? ;)
    Such a shame that the "LOL" button has put paid to peope making or quoting inflammatory comments and saying something about opening the popcorn. Usually made me laugh.

    But you right wing Powell-lovers wouldn't understand.




    Opens popcorn.
  • I'm Seth's Plums.

    Bollox
  • Sponsored links:


  • Don't expect to see a statement via the LMA until the financial package has been agreed between the owner and Powell
  • Financial package. 3 months money, No?
  • package?
  • My guess is that as he loves the club and is a professional he won't say much that is controversial.

    He will, no doubt, be hoping that he can start to put himself forward for another job in time for the start of next season, a rant will not help him do that. However, even if he wasn't worried about his next job I just can't see him slagging off the Charlton or saying anything that will make it harder for the club, or the players he's left behind.
  • edited March 2014

    LuckyReds said:

    PL54 said:

    LoOkOuT said:

    As usual @PL54, it looks like you've uncovered something that no one else thought of, including Powell, nor anyone at the LMA. Good job! Right up there with some of your all time great comments.

    Go on, please give me my top 5.
    You've already replied to that once mate, with "Tetchy".

    Have you spent 4 hours thinking up a better reply just to come back and give it a second go or something? ;)
    Such a shame that the "LOL" button has put paid to peope making or quoting inflammatory comments and saying something about opening the popcorn. Usually made me laugh.

    But you right wing Powell-lovers wouldn't understand.




    Opens popcorn.
    He was a left back.

    May i share your popcorn?
  • Sponsored links:


  • LMA contracts are fixed-term contracts of employment, not dissimilar to any other Contract of Employment (players contracts are however different).

    Virtually every football management role (manager, first team coaches etc...) in the game ends with a technically unfair dismissal and is consequently concluded invariably with a very generous settlement agreement - I would imagine CP's departure will have been handled in exactly the same way and the LMA statement will be a prepared statement, the wording of which will likely be covered within the settlement terms.

    Bear in mind that the salaries involved here are off the scale and recourse to ET is meaningless financially with the sums on offer based on the alternative potential maximum award form a Tribunal (£74k). The only way this figure can be exceeded (no limit) is when the reason for dismissal was due to discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic - e.g. race.

    Also, for clarity, I understand Chris was sacked (not a resignation) therefore any claim would be for unfair dismissal - not unfair constructive dismissal.




  • A true gent, a Charlton legend and a class act.
  • Nice words
  • Very, very dignified.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!