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

[loyalgrecian]

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

I assume you refer to my previous post - It cannot be over if RC is taking legal advice and seeks reinstatement - the legal process will run its course. Perhaps some other Trustees will also be gone by the end of the process.

Note the word "if". I have no knowledge of the situation, merely that there appears to be a case to answer.

 

[loyalgrecian]

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.

Yes, and the chances of this have been lessened due to the club being forced to take a PFA loan and having an embargo imposed. That is a direct concern of the man in the street. RC appears to the man in the street to have actually done something and then be slapped down for it. Details are not important to the man in the street.

 

[Alistair20000]

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.

Exactly right Pete.

 

[Edward]

Yes, and the chances of this have been lessened due to the club being forced to take a PFA loan and having an embargo imposed. That is a direct concern of the man in the street. RC appears to the man in the street to have actually done something and then be slapped down for it. Details are not important to the man in the street.

The fact that a loan was needed not does reflect well on the Company Secretary. If the club had been more open about their financial mess, a different solution, one which did not necessitate a PFA loan, might have been possible. The fact that the transfer embargo remains is entirely because of decisions taken by the club board, Conway and all. His dismissal from the Trust is a detail; his real error was failing to apply any level of governance consistent with protecting a £900k loan.

 

[loyalgrecian]

Exactly right Pete.

But like it or not the man in the street is the one who keeps the club going. Those people, in their thousands, who top up the diehard 1500 or so are the ones who make the marginal difference and therefore their views are important.

 

[Truthbetold]

RaeUK some kind of financial whizz kid you are. Would you put your savings at risk for a couple of hundred quid into a business with such a dire financial position. No I didn't think so. Thus Roger is/was obviously an idiot or a very loyal and generous club supporter. He is not an idiot. Draw your own conclusions, it's easier than accepting you are so vindictive

 

[hoover]

But like it or not the man in the street is the one who keeps the club going. Those people, in their thousands, who top up the diehard 1500 or so are the ones who make the marginal difference and therefore their views are important.

But no more important - given the Trust membership model - than any other ordinary Trust member.

 

[The Doctor]

I did note the word 'if' LG. If the sentence started with 'if' your patronising argument would make some sense. As it is preceded by 'it cannot be over if he is...' - it does not.
As it is, I'm with bitts on your intentions here so I'm also going to refrain from posting anymore.

 

[LOG]

I think it's just worth pointing out that Conway wasn't expelled for making the loan or the conditions attached or for breaching rule 82, he was expelled for breaching the Code of Conduct and the impact this had on his future working relationship with other Trustees.

If he is seeking legal advice, and the piece in the Echo said he intended to challenge the decision, what would be achieved by being reinstated? He’d still have to step down in October anyway, wouldn’t he? It appears to me that his argument could only be that the rules haven't been applied consistently but that other Trustees/officers may have known about the loan is, IMO, largely irrelevant – it was his responsibility to ensure that the whole of the Trust Board were aware and whilst we don’t know the conversation surrounding the big reveal to the select bunch, that he continued to refer to the lender in the third person when corresponding with the Board suggests that he didn’t say “…and can you make sure everyone else knows?” What was the problem with being open with his fellow Trustees or didn't he trust them?

If, indeed, his argument is that the rules weren't applied consistently then the only outcome I can see is a potential destabilisation of the entire Trust Board. Is that what he wants to achieve? A complete undermining of the model he so strongly supports just to make a point?

 

[RaeUK]

RaeUK some kind of financial whizz kid you are.

Why, thank-you, I do my best.