trotamundos

I'm sure they would have been top of the table beffs.

retired_prettygirl9156

Some official websites at this level are far from official.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

What the heck? Of course they would have a lok at the report before it goes on the site. i appreciate you might be a bit hacked off, but it's on their site, and it points out the guy was a pr1ck.

You claim "the official site report has nothing to do with the club itself as I understand" How do you understand? Has someone informed you that people just randomly put stuff up without the club even looking at it?

Or have you just been proved wrong in this instance? </BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the Grays website is run by and reports are written by a fair and level headed fan, not a club official. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And no member of the club sees what goes up, or has any influence whatsoever at what gets posted? Would find that incredibly hard to believe. </BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a new rule being brought into all Leagues in England this season stating:

My_Evo

Some official websites at this level are far from official.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

What the heck? Of course they would have a lok at the report before it goes on the site. i appreciate you might be a bit hacked off, but it's on their site, and it points out the guy was a pr1ck.

You claim "the official site report has nothing to do with the club itself as I understand" How do you understand? Has someone informed you that people just randomly put stuff up without the club even looking at it?

Or have you just been proved wrong in this instance? </BLOCKQUOTE>


Grays don't have a website run by the club.
The "official" website is run by a fan, and the club just allow it to be referred to as official.

As WCR says, there is a new rule in force this year, but the Conference board have never been much cop at holding their members to the rules. When it doesn't suit.

trotamundos

Well that's my point. Pretty sure the club doesn't just allow it to be referred to as official without being away of what's going up. It would leave them open to all sorts of legal ramifications should something go up there that shouldn't. So, again, I find it hard to believe that no official sees what goes up.

Unless someone wants to tell me that they know it not to be the case? Because at the moment all I can't see much evidence.

My_Evo

Well, I'd disagree there.
I'd say any lawyer advising the club would be advising them on how best to keep themselves out of any trouble, and the best way to do that is to be seen to be proactive in addressing any issue.
If the player has become a risk to the club, then the club is best tackling that head on. They'd have grounds for dismissal, and they absolve themselves by doing so.

Any action will be against the player, not the club, so the way to minimise exposure for the client (grays) is to disassociate themselves from Jamie Stuart.

My_Evo

If their official position is that they're not going to comment till they see what happens and review the evidence (as they have stated), then why would they also approve a statement referring to the challenge as "brutal"?

As ridiculous as it sounds, Grays have no connection with their official website (welcome to the Conference).

retired_layne129

This is the Conference Herman. Things aren't done as they should be down here

trotamundos

Fair enough, you obviously have some inside knowledge I'm not aware of. I'm aware of the rules in the conference, and what goes on to a degree, being close to both Aldershot and Woking and taking a pretty active interest in the going son their, particularly Aldershot so saying "welcome to the conference" seems a bit harsh when those two clubs (and Farnborough before it all went very wrong) are run at least to the point where they don't let a site represent them without making sure they couldn't be hung out to try with what gets put up.

I'd dispute the point about the conference not holding its members to the rules when it doesnlt suits as well, but 1) I think you are hacked off and want to blame the leauge and Gray's no matter what, and 2) I am going to bed.

So in, conclusion, Gray's are an awful club and should have shot the player. Or something.

My_Evo

I don't blame Grays or the League. I blame the player that assaulted Chris Beardsley.
However, I do personally think Grays should have at least apologised.


The thing about the Conference board has nothing to do with this, but I'd say with confidence plenty of examples of their inconsistency can be found from the last 5 years.

retired_rockstar

I'm with Aslan on this one.