Should Roger Conway have got a Yellow Card and finished his tenure in October?

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Of course, the bottom line in all this is that if RC and his missus had loaned the club the money but had not been a trustee, they could almost certainly have kept their anonymity throughout. This would have been so even if he himself had been a board appointed director (as opposed to a Trust nominated one) and/or company secretary, as he would not have been in breach of any rules.

It is the fact that he was a Trustee and chose to throw his toys out of the pram over the (then) rumoured proposed removal of the club chairman that it ever became public at all. That he did that, seemingly as a result of having been given advice is very strange indeed. Why would he do that?

In his statement he wrote;

I do not wish to go into detail about the events at the Trust Board meeting of 21st May and who said what and whether or not certain decisions were made, other than to say that when I left the meeting I did so with the clear and unambiguous impression that a particular Trustee was proposing a resolution to summarily dismiss the Club Chairman and that filled me with horror because of the effect that such an ill thought out knee jerk action would have on the trading market that the Club operates in.

I still don't understand why he would believe that it would make one jot of difference.

 

[hoover]

How does Loyalgrecian know that he represents the 'silent majority'? I wouldn't claim to know what others - apart from those who have posted here - think, and don't understand how LG thinks that he does. For what it's worth, a personal view is that it's hard to knock someone - anyone - giving up their time of their own volition - there's lots of us who love the Club, but still don't. However, the facts as presented suggest that RC acted in a way contrary to the best interests of the Trust and Club, and had to go. It is, admittedly, irrelevant in this context, but he did himself few favours with his brusque and condescending attitude when posting here or on Gnet.

 

[grecian55]

I have not met RC to the best of my knowledge - I am simply offering the viewpoint of the silent majority. If those posting on here do not care to admit that the typical City fan does not travel to 15 away games per season and all those at home and does not post over 1000 times on Exeweb then that is their blinkered attitude. It doesn't alter the fact that I am more representative.

Is your Dad bigger than my Dad ?,strange attitude you have there fella ?

 

[Rog H K]

5% interest is better than what you get on your savings in any bank. Perhaps the Supporters Club should have charged the Club 5% when they lent the Club monies into the thousands when the Club was a little bit more open and had a Supporters Club Director on the Board who was neutral of both Club and Trust. It's a shame the Board at the time that included Ed and Roger felt the need to blackball the candidate put forward by the Supporters Club saying there was nothing they could offer and in turn do away with the post. Too much cloak and dagger stuff of late. Perhaps the new Chair of the Club if and when he/she is appointed takes a different view on things and we can get back to singing "We own our Football Club" in more ways than one.

 

[loyalgrecian]

Good grief. Reading the posts from these two jokers is turning my stomach. It's like listening to a pair of floundering politicians. Most of their 'reasoning' is laughable but the idea that RC is consulting lawyers and wants to be reinstated says it all.
.

I don't believe that I stated RC is consulting lawyers - I offered my opinion that he probably should be as he has a case for wrongful/unfair dismissal. Wishing this away will not work. I believe that there has been a serious procedural error made based on my reading of the material available. If this has had an effect on RC's reputation then he is within his rights to sue for defamation if he so wishes.

 

[loyalgrecian]

Is your Dad bigger than my Dad ?,strange attitude you have there fella ?

No, the strange attitude appears to be that of the clique on here. Totally divorced from reality.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

a) Jury is out as other Trustees knew including Chair & Sec - if Trust correct to remove Conway then the others who also knew must GO NOW as well.

b) Those on the Trust who found Conway guilty of making a confidential loan (but he did inform key Trust Officers) yet let the others in the know off must have been aiming to be personal and get rid of Conway, otherwise all of those in the know should have received the same summary verdict of expulsion.

c) If that is such a cert then why did no-one else step up to the plate then and why did ECFC then pay 10% 2x the interest rate to the PFA and have a transfers embargo and publicity about being in trouble if there was no risk at all?

d) When? Who? A starter for 10 would be to update the Trust's unfit for purpose constitution to allow an appeal with an independent adjudicator so that the truth can emerge and mis-justice or wrongful/over (Red Card punishment to be addressed. Will the Trust accept independent adjudication with a published verdict for open-ness, transparency and fair play??

e) On a Board all proposals have to be passed with a majority, so ZERO pay Conway cannot be solely held to account can he? Why not work through the Board minutes and work out what really stops change & reform?

How does Roger Conway and his Wife move on then? The Red Card dismissal clearly damages his reputation, yet no appeal can be heard without the potential prospect of costly & damaging legal action being taken instead.

Case NOT closed.

a.) No the jury is not out. He broke the rules and has been punished correctly. Just because in your biased, worked up state you think it was unfair does not mean the jury is out.

b.) I was referencing your previous claim earlier in this thread that the debate here has been personal. You were wrong about that and you know it. I've no idea about personalities on the Trust Board but he was removed because he broke the rules. If you think others should be too then pursue it with the Trust.

c.) What you wrote makes no sense. I never mentioned no risk but as I said season ticket money paid off Conway's loan with, apparently, a juicy 5% bonus. Got no issue with this other than that Conway claimed the loan was purely altruistic.

d.) If you want openness from the Trust then take it up with them.

e.) When did I say Conway was solely responsible? He was part of a regime which has overseen a period of significant decline and led the club to the verge of administration. If he didn't support the decisions being taken he should have resigned.

Conway was rightly found guilty. You keep banging on about his personal reputation but this is utter nonsense. HE is the one that went public, HE is the one that went to the echo, HE is the one that has fed you all this garbage to be posted on here. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the process the Trust has acted admirably not to rise to the provocation of Conway. I'm far more motivated to listen to those that have served on the Trust Board in the past and worked with Conway than I am to trust the opinion of his friends, whose defence I originally thought was admirable, but is increasingly coming across as a rather cynical attempt to cause trouble. For that reason I'm not going to contribute to this thread anymore.

 

[loyalgrecian]

How does Loyalgrecian know that he represents the 'silent majority'? I wouldn't claim to know what others - apart from those who have posted here - think, and don't understand how LG thinks that he does. For what it's worth, a personal view is that it's hard to knock someone - anyone - giving up their time of their own volition - there's lots of us who love the Club, but still don't. However, the facts as presented suggest that RC acted in a way contrary to the best interests of the Trust and Club, and had to go. It is, admittedly, irrelevant in this context, but he did himself few favours with his brusque and condescending attitude when posting here or on Gnet.

Because when I chat to an uninformed City fan and present the salient facts they are of the same opinion as me. Someone lends the club money and is then fired for a procedural mistake and was fired in a way that appears to have been unlawful. That is what you are up against - it's time that someone pointed out the reality on Exeweb as there has been far too much navel gazing amongst those with the same point of view.

By all means agree amongst yourselves as to how dreadful RC was and what an appalling thing it was to have lent the club money and been in unpaid service for years. That does not reflect the view of the man on the street.

What will it take for the blinkers to come off?

 

[The Doctor]

Err, what was post 125 all about then loyal Grecian?

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

That does not reflect the view of the man on the street.

In my experience, the view of the average man (or woman) in the street is that they don't generally give a flying fig about the internal politics, infighting or how the club is run or financed. All that bothers them is that the club exists and they have some (preferably entertaining) football to watch at SJP. That is one of the downsides of Trust control.