|
Post by soupie on Dec 10, 2004 11:07:49 GMT 1
I'm sure Soupie can clear up whether someone can be bailed if not charged? . It would seem that in this instance, contact had been made between the North Wales police and Bill Wingrove and/or his solicitor, and that a mutually convenient time was arranged for BW to be interviewed regarding the matter in hand. He would have attended the Police Station under his own steam, and there would have been arrested, to comply with police procedures. He would have been granted police bail to a date some time in the future (next month I understand in this instance) to allow the police to make further enquiries as a result of what the interview disclosed, and to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to charge with an offence. There are now three possibilites of what can happen:- (1) As stated, if there is sufficient evidence he can be charged with the relevant offence when he answers his bail, (2) If enquiries have not been completed by the scheduled return date, the the bail can be extended and (3) If enquiries reveal no evidence to charge, then BW will be told at the time of answering his bail that there will be no further action or he may have his bail cancelled without having to return to the police station. Trust that this helps from a procedural point of view. I would say from experience that many people are dealt with in this manner - it makes it easier for all parties, although obviously the stigma of the word 'arrest' isn't very pleasant for the person concerned.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Dec 10, 2004 11:17:24 GMT 1
Seems to me he should.
From my point of view, if the allegations are relevant to the current position held, then it is in everyones interest.
Things like fraud and deception are pretty relevant no matter what job you do, if you empty bins for a living, if there was a police enquiry into allegations of fraud, theft, deception, I would guess you would be suspended, ON FULL PAY, ( and i think that is important ), until the enquiry reaches a conclusion.
A good question perhaps, is do STFC have a proper disiplinary protacol in place for people like him? Players yes, but if his job is on a business mans handshake kind of basis, then Town may have a problem suspending him.
No expert on legal stuff, so this might be utter coblars, just thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Dec 10, 2004 11:21:40 GMT 1
The reason people are asked to attend the police station instead of officers being dispatched to arrest the individual at home or work is to allow valuable police resources to be used effectively, instead of several officers being involved in the operation to arrest.
Bill Wingrove WAS arrested and bailed, it is not a technicality as Mattsnapper seems to think.
I also cannot understand this "we cant do without him at this crucial time in the clubs history" kind of argument....WHY ?
Is Bill the only man that is capable of doing the job?, im sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people locally that could quite happily fill the role of Chief Exec effectivley.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Dec 10, 2004 11:30:30 GMT 1
I also cannot understand this "we cant do without him at this crucial time in the clubs history" kind of argument....WHY ? Is Bill the only man that is capable of doing the job?, im sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people locally that could quite happily fill the role of Chief Exec effectivley. Very good point kickin. Kinda stinks of desperation, or has rather dark undertones
|
|
|
Post by soupie on Dec 10, 2004 11:39:25 GMT 1
Is Bill the only man that is capable of doing the job?, im sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people locally that could quite happily fill the role of Chief Exec effectivley. That may well be correct, but at the present moment Bill Wingrove is the person holding that post. It is a fact, is it not, that STFC have had to make cuts in the commercial staff of late? It hardly seems a solution then, to appoint someone else to fill this role. Wages have to come into the equation.
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Dec 10, 2004 11:45:13 GMT 1
Soupie - there are many talented people about that could do wonders for STFC. If its a case of money then we could always raise it to pay the additional wages, if you want to do something then the only thing that gets in the way is peoples attitudes, anything is possible with the determination and willingness to act.
Wages are a side issue!
I would also state that a commercial department that thinks a 148 capicity supporters bar is ok needs a good kick up the ass .
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Dec 10, 2004 11:48:49 GMT 1
That may well be correct, but at the present moment Bill Wingrove is the person holding that post. It is a fact, is it not, that STFC have had to make cuts in the commercial staff of late? It hardly seems a solution then, to appoint someone else to fill this role. Wages have to come into the equation. Yes they do , but the priority has to be the long term future of the club, and that demands a good reputation as much as anything. At this moment in time, with two recent front page headlines involving STFC execs, are we doing ourselves any favours?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2004 11:51:42 GMT 1
Yes they do , but the priority has to be the long term future of the club, and that demands a good reputation as much as anything. At this moment in time, with two recent front page headlines involving STFC execs, are we doing ourselves any favours? Soupie's right. No way can we bring in another Chief Exec. But Pab's points are equally valid. We're in a sticky patch.
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Dec 10, 2004 12:10:38 GMT 1
Did we not survive without a chief exec for many months if not years before Colin Pooles appointment?
Can we not survive for a few weeks without a Chief Exec untill bail is answered?
If hes charged in January, he should be sacked.
If hes released without chrage then he should be re-instated.
Its very simple really, its not as if we wont have a chief exec for 12 months is it!
Lets keep to nthe real issues people and not get bogged down in insignificant arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Rod on Dec 10, 2004 12:16:18 GMT 1
If they don't suspend him then the least they should do is keep him away from the petty cash tin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2004 12:27:37 GMT 1
Did we not survive without a chief exec for many months if not years before Colin Pooles appointment? Can we not survive for a few weeks without a Chief Exec untill bail is answered? If hes charged in January, he should be sacked. If hes released without chrage then he should be re-instated. Its very simple really, its not as if we wont have a chief exec for 12 months is it! Lets keep to nthe real issues people and not get bogged down in insignificant arguments. Yes we can Kickin (I voted Yes ) but Bill is vital in getting the NM sorted.
|
|
|
Post by Groover on Dec 10, 2004 12:28:10 GMT 1
For the record i would like to say i agree with everything Kickin has said in this thread The facts are all there and the argument is well put in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Dec 10, 2004 12:34:06 GMT 1
Lets keep to nthe real issues people and not get bogged down in insignificant arguments. with the new meadow build only a month away, I think the arguments are signigicant ....however KIP - your arguments and opinions are spot on, however personally im more liberal unless he was charged. the way i argue is being devils advocat and try to see peoples ways or arguing their point a second time around - like I said KIP, I agree 100% with your points, but my opinion is to be a bit more liberal What if Bill is right, what if he did leave Wrexham to escape and is only guilty by association..? Chester were doomed b4 Bill got there. Im sure Roland and Keith have grilled Bill to death - this happened Sunday and it didnt come out until Thursday. For me, a certain other person at GM is worthy of more discussion than Bill. But this person is more clever, has money and top laywers behind him and his powers of persuasion are better than mine, hence hes a millionaire and im not !
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Dec 10, 2004 12:39:39 GMT 1
Spot on Matt. I don't think anyone can argue with Kickin's points. He talks a lot of sense and it's easy to see where he's coming from, it's just that personally I come to a different conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Dec 10, 2004 12:57:24 GMT 1
Just a matter of interest, what would happen if Bill Wingrove was found guilty. STFC could not sack him from his post, because the charge is related to Wrexham and not the Town. So surely it is possible for him to take the Town to an industiral tribunal for unfair dismissal.......... Just thought i'd bring this into the debate because in hindsight the charges have no relevence to STFC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2004 13:02:32 GMT 1
Just a matter of interest, what would happen if Bill Wingrove was found guilty. STFC could not sack him from his post, because the charge is related to Wrexham and not the Town. So surely it is possible for him to take the Town to an industiral tribunal for unfair dismissal.......... Just thought i'd bring this into the debate because in hindsight the charges have no relevence to STFC. No chance of employment tribunal if we fire him before August. Has to have done 12 months.
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Dec 10, 2004 13:19:12 GMT 1
No chance of employment tribunal if we fire him before August. Has to have done 12 months.
|
|
|
Post by kickinpretty on Dec 10, 2004 13:22:09 GMT 1
They certainly could sack him if he is convicted, they could also sack him if hes charged, and they should definately suspend him during his bail.
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Dec 10, 2004 13:28:02 GMT 1
No chance of employment tribunal if we fire him before August. Has to have done 12 months. Thanks for the clarification It was just a thought, i did vote in favour for suspention
|
|
|
Post by RG on Dec 10, 2004 13:31:27 GMT 1
No chance of employment tribunal if we fire him before August. Has to have done 12 months. Yes, I believe this ruse was invented by HR people to ensure that they cant foul up big style
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2004 13:46:29 GMT 1
Yes, I believe this ruse was invented by HR people to ensure that they cant foul up big style God bless the 12-month rule.
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Dec 10, 2004 14:06:33 GMT 1
OK then Gareth, off topic and purely out of interest, what are the rules regarding working without having or being offered a contract?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2004 15:08:05 GMT 1
Minefield here.
A properly constructed employment contract makes things hell of a lot easier when things go wrong.
However, the absence of a contract does not in itself make staff and employers exempt from employment law.
It does however make the investigative stage a lot longer and messier.
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Dec 10, 2004 15:10:50 GMT 1
So if you didn't have one, would you have to keep to the company's rules (eg notice, internet use where there is no internet policy etc.) or does the fact you don't have one make you exempt?
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Dec 10, 2004 15:11:38 GMT 1
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on" - Sam Goldwyn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2004 15:17:45 GMT 1
When there's no policy, the company are in a weak position......
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Dec 10, 2004 15:19:02 GMT 1
When there's no policy, the company are in a weak position...... Interesting. Cheers Gaz!
|
|