Accrington Web - Rob heys

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)

- Accrington Stanley (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f93/)

- - Rob heys (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f93/rob-heys-64707.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1071995)

I know quite a few lovely blokes that go up Stanley, Are they fit to be in charge of the club? Are they hell as like.:rolleyes:

Your talking about me again!
;)

If I could put in my 2penneth here;
1. Rob Heys has let himself down badly,
2. Rob Heys has let the club down badly.
3. Rob Heys has let his family down badly,
4. Rob Heys has let Ilyas Khan down very badly considering the faith shown in him after the last debacle.
5. As others have said, he has done many a good thing for ASFC, (the Monte Carlo or bust rally just recently springs to mind), however, to bet against ASFC is unforgivable and I believe makes his position within the club untenable, even after the ban has been completed, be 21 months or less after the appeal.

I am with others on this, the board must either accept his total resignation from the club regardless of the outcome of the appeal or they should sack him now.

However, I must agree with Peter Marsden, we should support the team and James Beattie come what may.

[QUOTE=Ghostbuster;1072085]
Think of the damage this doing to the club-I would urge Rob to do the decent thing accept you were in the wrong, take it and let the club you claim to love move on and try to survive./QUOTE]

Which is exactly what he has done with his statement, as far as I can see. He is appealing the severity of the sentence, which to my mind is entirely understandable given assorted precedents involving people who really can affect the result of a game.

I may sometimes go too far in trying to understand both sides of an argument, but too many people on here can't even see that there might be two sides!

What exactly is the other side of what Rob has done?:confused: He has consistently bet for many years, ignorance is no defence for breaking rules, more so when yeh happen to be in charge.

My overriding feeling on the events and comments of today is one of incredible sadness and I've refrained from commenting thus far as have been too upset and wanted to wake up tomorrow as a new day, however, I've got increasingly frustrated as the day has gone on and need to get some stuff out before I sleep.

On a human level, I feel sadness for Rob as he has, in all likelihood, lost his dream job, has a young family to support, has always had the good of ASFC at his heart and is a lovely bloke.

On a professional level, just what was he thinking of? If you hold a position with any kind of responsibility within the club and are even thinking of betting in a game the club is involved in, let alone betting for them to lose, it should cross your mind to question the ethical nature of what you're doing. On the 231 occasions Rob placed a bet on games involving Stanley, did he ever once stop to think 'does this feel right?'

As MD, your job is to set standards and be impeccable, and I'm afraid Rob hasn't done either. The sheer volume of the number of breaches is truly staggering and the scale of Rob's offences means that him returning to his job is simply not tenable.

If there is to be anything salvaged from this, then I urge Rob to resign, no matter how painful this is to do, and for Peter Marsden and the Board to begin the challenge of finding a new MD, someone who will lead the club, set standards, behave impeccably and demonstrate a continued ability to act with good judgement, all things that Rob sadly did not do. If such a person is appointed, then we can begin the slow, but steady road back to rehabilitation and away from tinpot.

I say, if such a person, because I think we should not kid ourselves what a challenging role this is for someone, who in all probability will be earning a relatively small salary. I urge the board to think about the salary level and dig deep as we need to attract the right calibre of candidates to begin re-establishing our reputation and it maybe the most important appointment the club makes.

Jeg Red I think your post sums up most people's feelings, nobody wants to see Rob out on his ear but like you say due to his role and the serious nature of what he has done his role is simply untenable. He must have known at some stage what he was doing wasn't right. There is no need for any investigation by the board, Rob is banned from football and even if wins a partial appeal he will still have a lengthy ban. Therefore all we are doing is prolonging an issue that needs to be resolved now and not in 4 weeks time.

What is in effect a two season ban seems very harsh.

Allowances should be made for an SME which would not have the resources of the larger organisations which dominate the game.

Rob seems like someone who goes above and beyond the call of duty, and the ban punishes the club as well as Rob.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod (Post 1072034)

as MD of the club he didn't bet on us according to the statement, he was MD for approximately 12 months - what the hell has that got to do with the betting scandal.

the job that he did as MD (in my eyes) has not been compromised because as MD he didn't do it (bet on us for or against).

He broke the rules that he was aware were in place = deserved to be punished, I haven't disputed that. But I do think the punishment is way too harsh when you consider the precedents set by the FA for other crimes.

Betting against Stanley (as an official of the club) is a crime against the fans
Betting on cup competitions that Stanley have long since left is a ridiculous thing to be charged for.

£1000? now that they have taken away his right to work in pretty much the only thing he's done in years how do they expect to get that money. Offer them a £1 a week Rob

"Betting against Stanley (as an official of the club) is a crime against the fans". The FANS are the club. Without the fans there would be no club.

Ive just read PETER MARSDEN statement re ROB HEYS but sometimes i wonder how can we have a chairman and directors who live a million miles away from ACCRINGTON surely a chairman should be within a few miles of the club to oversee clubs daily problems . I know we have 3 directors who live local and visit the club daily BILL HOLDEN , JEFF HEAP and PETER SHAW there may be more CAN ANYONE publish a list of our directors and where they live. I'd love to know.

Where they live aint a problem to me Ian, More concerned wi how things run.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1072148)

Where they live aint a problem to me Ian, More concerned wi how things run.;)

Well we have one director who lives in HONG KONG how can he be of any use except financialy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewbacca (Post 1072129)

What is in effect a two season ban seems very harsh.

Rob seems like someone who goes above and beyond the call of duty, and the ban punishes the club as well as Rob.

All bans/punishments should be harsh. Not only to have a punitive effect on the guilty but to act as a deterrent to others. Simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DtheP47 (Post 1072153)

All bans/punishments should be harsh. Not only to have a punitive effect on the guilty but to act as a deterrent to others. Simple.

Wonder if its actually dawned on some,? The fact Rob confessed n gave help to em in this case, is likely the reason he only got 21 months. Cos thats what always happens in courts of law. i imagine this is run on same lines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianray (Post 1072147)

I know we have 3 directors who live local and visit the club daily BILL HOLDEN , JEFF HEAP and PETER SHAW there may be more CAN ANYONE publish a list of our directors and where they live. I'd love to know.

Let's not forget ROBERT HOUSEMAN and JOHN NORRIS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianray (Post 1072147)

I reckon if you did a survey of all football clubs Stanley directors are probably more hands on than most if not all other clubs. Not sure you will see Roman at Chelsea brewing up :D