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

[Friend_of_Roger_Conway]

Out of interest which ones? Genuine question.

Sorry, I mis-posted without your post included:

However, the Trust has issued a statement praising Chorlton’s work.

The Trust would like to acknowledge Ed Chorlton’s work for the club during the last four-and-a-half years,” the statement read. “In particular, his involvement in securing the lease on the Fountain Centre is likely to prove a significant legacy.

Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/...#ixzz3A6oVMfea

 

[Red & White]

I think Ed Chorlton was thanked for his work as he stood down from his position and not dismissed as is the case with Roger Conway.

 

[geoffwp]

I have learnt to enjoy the pain!

Hmm. A sado masochist? That's ok, and well done for coming out. We accept all pursuasions here. Just try not to be quite so boring.

 

[AndyR]

Genuine question: damages his reputation with who and how?

I would suggest he'd be welcome at the club to watch games the same as any other supporter would and that he'd receive the same treatment from fans as everyone does too. Most people, I would suggest, have no idea who he is or what he looks like so he should still be able to come and go at the club like everyone else is.

Outside of the club I suspect not one single solitary person gives a f*** about him or what he has or hasn't done. I don't see why he can't go about his daily business as he always has done. Certainly if I bumped into him in the street I'd still stop and say hello.

Hear, hear. And a further point is that if Mr Conway did issue some sort of action against the Trust (to recover precisely what I am not at all sure), then he would be exposing himself and the whole sorry saga to the glare of publicity. He would run the risk of alienating most Trust members and City fans who currently don't know him from Adam and in that respect would become the author of his own misfortune.

 

[malcolms]

On what grounds? Perhaps start with abuse of process and go from there. Unless you are a Solicitor specialising in employment law please don't try to deal with legal matters, there really is no point. It is clearly not remotely simple.

But he wasn't employed....how difficult is it for you to understand that employment law applies to people who are, or have been.........employed....the clue is in the word.

 

[Red Monster]

I get it now it's all about Roger not getting a thank you card , may be us true Exewebbers can remedy that and have
A whip round ! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Edward]

Given the white towel hasn't come in, shouldn't the referee have stopped it by now?

 

[PeteUSA]

But he wasn't employed....how difficult is it for you to understand that employment law applies to people who are, or have been.........employed....the clue is in the word.

Nail on head Malc. Conway admits that he wasnt paid a registered wage, and that he gave all this time he talks about for FREE. Evidently he says the only money he picked up was for any expenses that cropped up. There is no case in respect of defamation of character at this time, no matter what his two mates who have just registered have to say. I would tread carefully though in the way you refer to Conway on here. He's obviously not taking his demise very well, judging by the lengthy defence of the man by our two newbies, who are obviously far more friendly with RC than they care to admit!

 

[Fred W]

Could the friends of the Poodle enlighten us to the actual wording of the charges made by the Trustees? Was this the only item up for discussion at that meeting relating to the conduct of Conway?

 

[Phil B]

Who cares? It says something that there is 24 pages of debate about someone who would have had to step down from the trust under the 6 year rule and only 9 posts about the next trust election which is way more important than a he said she said argument about past events.