Mel: Case for defence

[RadioactiveWaste]

I genuinely dont think this is hair trigger chairman cant take a few losses. 

Quite why the relationships have gone down badly between Mel and Clement then Mel and Pearson we dont know. But on Friday Pearson was the man and we're going to hold fast. Tuesday, his behaviour gets him suspended. 

But, taking a top six side to a bottom three side is going to leave you questions to answer. If when asked them you lose you temper, you might get in trouble. 

My theory, Mel's integrity and decency is getting him a ton of flack, because if the truth was out, we'd all agree there was.no choice, but Mel feels compelled to keep some things behind closed doors. Its only a theory.

[eddie]

2 hours ago, Super Johnny Russell said:

Or perhaps Mel wasn't truthful in saying that Clement wasn't doing as he was told. And should any manager stick to by the letter all the time. Surely sometimes other tactics are required to tighten things up, try things out to cover all scenarios, to combat better opposition if the manager feels they are better?.

I suspect Clements first task was to sure up the defense, even at the detriment of the attack, as that's where we'd previously failed.

He's appointed two managers and he's fallen out with them both. Says it all.

Hung, drawn and quartered.

Now we just have to find him guilty.

Also, anyone who calls himself 'Super Johnny Russell' is a courtroom short of a drama.

[Angry Ram]

2 hours ago, cannable said:

The defence didn't need tightening up. Up until the point at which Thorne, Eustace, Mascarell, Martin and Bent were injured we had the joint second best defensive record in the league. We broke a consecutive clean sheet record that season. 

As for you first paragraph; http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/25420261

Even so he still needed to shore up he defence... Eusless and Mascarell were gone.. Just ignore that or shore up the defence.

[BBG83]

6 minutes ago, eddie said:

Hung, drawn and quartered.

Now we just have to find him guilty.

Also, anyone who calls himself 'Super Johnny Russell' is a courtroom short of a drama.

Haha. Had to pick a name and was in a rush. First thing that entered my mind. He must have been playing well at the time.

[GboroRam]

Adding words like possibly and allegedly does not allow anyone to post unsubstantiated rumors. Please don't. 

[cannable]

9 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Even so he still needed to shore up he defence... Eusless and Mascarell were gone.. Just ignore that or shore up the defence.

Newstace, a replacement for Whitbread and somebody as capable on the ball as Lord Jake and as good defensively as Shackell and the defence would have improved without having to change the nature of how it functioned.

[archied]

Was super excited when Mel took over the club , have liked a lot that he has done , as a mad Derby fan there are going to be times when Mel gets right on my tits as recent events have shown and I've been critical of him but the truth is ( in my eyes ) he is a mad Derby fan too so you know what? Long term I'm always going to cut him some slack and be glad we ve got him , he's not the 3 amigos buying the club for a pound and draining the life out of us , he's probably guilty of having very high expectations for Derby and maybe not as high a patience threshold for reaching those expectation but hey I'm not going to shoot him for that ,,, just have the odd moan at him when Derby are frustrating the hell out of me 

[Ramshankered]

This is pure speculation on my part, but Owen Bradley said he interviewed Mel on Friday and at that point he was still 100% behind Pearson.

If I was in Mel's position - having just backed my man to the media - I'd feel pretty betrayed if then said-man blew a gasket at me. Something like "oi mate, I've just defended your management style to the media, and now you're throwing it in my face".  I can sympathise why Mel would be pissed off in those circumstances. 

[G STAR RAM]

On 28/09/2016 at 09:52, TuffLuff said:

As chairman he has to take the brunt that his last two managerial appointments have ended up being the wrong ones. This has ended up costing us millions already and will end up costing us millions more which could have gone elsewhere.

So when makes a call it is HIS decision but when he invests millions it is OURS?

[Van der MoodHoover]

40 minutes ago, Ramshankered said:

This is pure speculation on my part, but Owen Bradley said he interviewed Mel on Friday and at that point he was still 100% behind Pearson.

If I was in Mel's position - having just backed my man to the media - I'd feel pretty betrayed if then said-man blew a gasket at me. Something like "oi mate, I've just defended your management style to the media, and now you're throwing it in my face".  I can sympathise why Mel would be pissed off in those circumstances. 

Presumably Saturdays performance wouldn't have helped matters between the two. 

[Carnero]

It doesn't help that in the insular world of football, all the media pundits and "experts"  have each other's back and so automatically defend "one of their own" rather than the businessman making the decisions.

In turn, this leads to the more "easily influenced" (AKA "simpleton" eh @EastHertsRam ) also assuming that the money man MUST be to blame despite the absence of real facts.

I choose to trust Mel 100% until he proves me otherwise, on balance I'd rather trust one of OUR own than the views of the random Tom's, DICK'S n 'Arry's.

[toddy]

6 hours ago, mwram1973 said:

Whether or not he is a ruthless businessman, he's obviously a highly successful one and if one of your employees gets in your face aggressively, as has been reported, you sack them. He is no different to any other boss in any corporation in the world. If you went guns blazing at your boss you'd be out the door too. Why should football be any different.

As has been said a million times Pearson has not been suspended FOR FOOTBALLING REASONS!!.

What part of that do you not understand.

I was pro Pearson from day one but if any of these reports are true I 100% back what MM has done.

What reports?

[Lokidoki]

1 hour ago, Saul Pimpson said:

I choose to trust Mel 100%

I am not quite so sure that high level business dealings; along with a bit of corporate style hubris, mix well with the all too common direct in your face football management style, (as an example: look at what we have just witnessed by the departure of Sam A) which appears to be most of football per se. Personally I feel (Mel) he should give corporate responsibility back to his CEO and do technically what he is responsible for, which is governance [then there will be less chance of an "altercation" (BBC Derby words).]

However one big caveat and that is, I feel, on the evidence (football related) that we have seen (In the public domain) with the Paul Clement scenario, Mel was guilty of a gross error of misjudgement that set us back further than what we could have hoped for. At the time I noted that if it was for football related decisions which were slightly naïve, then it would be in the clubs' interest to then take on board a "mentor" which was done for DW but not for PC. 

Before we go further on this one on the merits of this that or other formation or playing style, under PC we had a blip that meant we lost a few matches but we were also obviously experimentally developing a "Plan B", but in my estimation not enough at the time to call the tune on the Coach. So we ended up with a PR "BS" disaster.... "The Derby Way"

Now for the record I really do want Mel to take us further but I feel that somewhere along the line Mel must learn to bite the bullet and let others get on with the process of the day to day management of a football club and that means team related decisions.

Hopefully after this week this will happen as not matter how much money you have you should still learn.

[Rev]

I find it odd that Radio Derby report on an altercation, and people automatically assume it involved Mel.

[Lokidoki]

1 minute ago, reveldevil said:

I find it odd that Radio Derby report on an altercation, and people automatically assume it involved Mel.

I'm sure at the time they reported it did appear to involve Mel, perhaps Owen can confirm? Perhaps it was the way it was reported that implied, non intentionally, that this happened?

[Rev]

2 minutes ago, Lokidoki said:

I'm sure at the time they reported it did appear to involve Mel, perhaps Owen can confirm? Perhaps it was the way it was reported that implied, non intentionally, that this happened?

You could be right, I didn't hear it.

 I just find the choice of language odd .

[Lokidoki]

1 minute ago, reveldevil said:

I just find the choice of language odd

Do you mean by my Chinglish (Lol) or by radio Derby?

 

[Rev]

1 minute ago, Lokidoki said:

Do you mean by my Chinglish (Lol) or by radio Derby?

 

Radio Derby.

If the 'altercation' involved Mel and Nigel, why the need for a suspension and investigation? 

A robust exchange of views could take place, including fruity language, but if it went too far the sanction would be immediate dismissal surely?

If however it involved Pearson and A N other, I could see why Derby have taken the action they have, while they gather all the evidence they can and then decide what punishment, if any, is appropriate.

[t'oldu]

The cruxial bit is what  sparked the row?  What was the suspension really about if it wasn't footballing matters but behavioural as first said?  SInce then the media have assumed it WAS footballing matters and Mel's interference that provoked the row.  This would not merit an internal investigation that is still ongoing.   And what part did Idiakez play ? Maybe we will never be told the truth just as in the PC dismissal when football was cited as the reason for his surprisingly sudden removal.  

[Lokidoki]

18 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

If the 'altercation' involved Mel and Nigel, why the need for a suspension and investigation? 

totally agree and for the latter point (AN Other) I really do not think we will ever know, which is really the bit that freaks the fans, as this never becomes public domain unless there are a fair amount of witnesses....