Some Thoughts on Recent Posts

[Alan Jelfs]

Hi Alan
Not sure I understand your comment. It seems to me that you are implying that to have resigned having accepted that one did wrong was in some way the wrong thing to do. My understanding of 'prejudicial' is that is something that causes bias or harm and prevents a fair hearing.

I hope all those venturing to the AGM get the chance to have a good debate and get their views heard. I also hope that whatever the outcome it is accepted.

I thought that prejudicial was also understood to simply mean something basic like 'pre-judgment' - neither positive nor negative. On checking its definition just now, however, I was surprised to read that it doesn't have this meaning :\ I took from the context that Alan meant it in the form I've suggested but I'm sure he will clarify

I simply meant that the resignation was something which could influence the thoughts of the SC.
I would try and clarify further but I have to leave now to go to the AGM

[Alex Gillies]

Hi Mike
I think Alan used the wrong phrase.

If "without prejudice" is used when resigning in response to a claim against you, you would be doing so without admitting or denying guilt. Basically It should not count against you nor for you.

In this case it would not have changed the outcome - just how they got there.

Perhaps Alan is suggesting going forward the ruling actually sates that removal from office would have happened. ie for the avoidance of doubt. But it seems obvious anyway as a ban on re-applying was issued.

Being sacked is not the same as resigning but you cant stop someone resigning. There is also a trade off. If you resign you remove the option of being sacked (and in the world of football managers often a huge pay off!) but you also remove the option of keeping the post. That's just the way it is and most of the time the end result is what matters.

This is illustrated with Stephens case (National League). I don't believe anyone wanted that to happen - Even if they did, had a case be brought against him, he would not have lost his post. The end result would not have been the same.

[Mike Scott]

If there is no advantage in resigning other than escaping being sacked I remain unsure as to what Alan considers the problem. At the end of the day there would still be an investigation and a finding against the person, and that would still be on their record.

[Alan Jelfs]

In the interests of "moving on", now the AGM is (mostly) over I am going to stop posting on pre-AGM "off-the-chess-board" matters.

[amuir]

The AGM was certainly a weird experience and I now realise that I have made more enemies than I thought by my controversial noticeboard postings. Therefore I will definitely be more conciliatory in the next season and let others be outspoken.

[Andy Howie]

Andy,

Well said! Sometimes it can be hard when you firmly believe in something. If I may proffer some advice? There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, if we all agreed on the same thing then life would be very boring. Be mindful of how you are doing it tho!

I can be one of the more argumentative people on the board, Dick and Hamish would probably agree. I firmly believe that if i strongly disagree with something then take the person or persons on directly and find common ground.

I don't think you have as many enemies as you think to be honest.

It certainly was weird!

[andyburnett]

Could somebody please post an 'unofficial' summary for those of us who couldn't make it today? Would be much appreciated - the 'weird' aspect sounds intriguing =o

[amuir]

Andy B
Three things :
you were right in judging peoples' moods on the noticeboard and I was wrong
my shirt was wringing with sweat at the end of that five-hour meeting
I'm starting a new year by letting others describe the details so I don't put my foot in it