Pat Murphy on Mel Morris

[Ewe Ram]

11 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

What's this bad press then? 

Exactly what I was wondering. These talking heads have to say something to justify their jobs, doesn't make them right! 

 

[cheron85]

4 hours ago, David said:

Would you be disappointed if I told you it wasn't true? None of it. 

I know many (not you personally) will want to use this as further factual proof of a interfering chairman but it's complete and utter fiction I have been reliably told.

 

3 hours ago, David said:

McClaren, coaching team and players have never watched games round Mel's house.

Does not receive or send regular texts to the players, 

David - Stop spoiling the rampant (pun intended) speculation with actual facts...

 

From the couple of people I know who've had spent time with Uncle Mel it seems unlikely he would be doing these things otherwise he would have stepped in to stop Martin being sent out - Made it very clear to my old man that he was dead against the decision but backed Pearson to know what he was doing

Plus if he was in contact with the players on a regular basis - Why would he show off about it? You only show off it's a rare thing don't you?

[cannable]

1 hour ago, EnigmaRam said:

What exactly is a qualified football chairman when it's at home!?!?! Is there a course I can take?

im not sure what he's expected to do to please some of you lot I really don't!!

Actual show some sign that he understands how to implement the strategy set out when Clement was sacked.

Talks a good game, screwed a pooch trying to put it into practise. 

[King Kevin]

15 hours ago, MikeS said:

May I suggest one or two things to consider. Mel as chairman and owner is entitled to know what is happening at the club and his team manager's views and plans. He intervenes when it is clear that the manager is screwing up. And rightly so. It is his money involved and his desired intention to make the club successful.

Steve Jobs once said you don't pay smart people to tell them what to do you hire them to tell you what to do .I would suggest that most managers he has employed know more about football than him so he should let them get on with it .Anyone worth his salt would not put up with micro management  so your comment is spot on he should not no more than that.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

Steve Jobs once said you don't pay smart people to tell them what to do you hire them to tell you what to do .I would suggest that most managers he has employed know more about football than him so he should let them get on with it .Anyone worth his salt would not put up with micro management  so your comment is spot on he should not no more than that.

They may know more about football than him, but maybe Mel knows more about what fans want to see than the manager does?

[Day]

34 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

From the couple of people I know who've had spent time with Uncle Mel it seems unlikely he would be doing these things otherwise he would have stepped in to stop Martin being sent out - Made it very clear to my old man that he was dead against the decision but backed Pearson to know what he was doing

Whilst I don't know how he felt about Martin or any other players specifically some transfers were questioned but the manager is always backed 100%. 

Isn't that what fans want? Leave the football to the football men? The very thing people are accusing him of not doing.

This does raise questions on how is it possible to retain the same playing philosopy when a manager is given so much freedom after bluffing his way through an interview.

It's why I couldn't understand the shift from head coach to manager but I guess you still need to give them the final say regardless of the job title.

Tricky one. Overrule the manager and you're interfering, back him and you will still be held responsible for the signings. Lose/Lose.

Not sure what the answer is, for me you need a some layer of protection to stop the likes of your 20 goal a season striker going out on loan to a rival, if that's not the owner then we need a DOF with the power.

[tomsdubs]

We should have a DOF who relays information and works between Mel and the manager. DOF manages and maintains the club direction and vision, Mel gives his input to him when he feels it necessary. Don't like the idea of the owners being so heavily involved, they can have chats sure but should leave the player management/coahcing to the manager.

[Red Ram]

4 hours ago, David said:

Would you be disappointed if I told you it wasn't true? None of it. 

I know many (not you personally) will want to use this as further factual proof of a interfering chairman but it's complete and utter fiction I have been reliably told.

 

3 hours ago, David said:

McClaren, coaching team and players have never watched games round Mel's house.

Does not receive or send regular texts to the players, 

Personally I'd be delighted if it's not true. We all want the same thing and I WANT to believe we can succeed with Morris as Chairman. If none of Pat Murhpy's claims are true, that prospect seems much more likely because it suggests Rowett will be allowed to manage.

Pat Murphy didn't say anything about how regularly Morris exchanged texts with players though and it wouldn't have to be regular to undermine the manager's position. The fact there isn't a flat-out denial suggests that that part at least is probably true.

If there's no truth whatsoever in Pat Murphy's claim about managers/coaching staff spending evenings watching re-runs of recent matches at Morris's house the club really ought to challenge Murphy to either substantiate or withdraw it because it doesn't put the club in general or Mel Morris in particular in a good light.

Just for the record, personally I'm not looking for "further factual proof of an intefering chairman" I'm looking for the opposite. I've no agenda against Morris as such and we're all appreciative of the money he's put into the club. We all want success and we know that's what Morris wants too. My only concern is that Morris's 'hands-on' style might itself be one of the major barriers to achieving that success.

[Tombo]

32 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

Steve Jobs once said you don't pay smart people to tell them what to do you hire them to tell you what to do .I would suggest that most managers he has employed know more about football than him so he should let them get on with it .Anyone worth his salt would not put up with micro management  so your comment is spot on he should not no more than that.

Well if Steve Jobs said it, then it must be true.

I mean I know he said it about an entirely different industry but it must certainly apply to football as well, a game he probably would have called by its wrong name (soccer).

I realise he was a very successful businessman but I didn't know he was the oracle of all knowledge on every topic.

[King Kevin]

6 minutes ago, Tombo said:

Well if Steve Jobs said it, then it must be true.

I mean I know he said it about an entirely different industry but it must certainly apply to football as well, a game he probably would have called by its wrong name (soccer).

I realise he was a very successful businessman but I didn't know he was the oracle of all knowledge on every topic.

Would have thought that applied to any industry ,looks like Mel is better at Candy Crush than football .

[cannable]

11 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

We should have a DOF who relays information and works between Mel and the manager. DOF manages and maintains the club direction and vision, Mel gives his input to him when he feels it necessary. Don't like the idea of the owners being so heavily involved, they can have chats sure but should leave the player management/coahcing to the manager.

I'd have Clough as DoF in a heartbeat. 

[Ewe Ram]

If Mel was to put all the cash in and not have any other involvement then that would make him the kind of manager that I don't like. The kind that owns a football club as a trophy, somewhere to wine and dine his friends, drag in his cronies. 

[Day]

41 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

Pat Murphy didn't say anything about how regularly Morris exchanged texts with players though and it wouldn't have to be regular to undermine the manager's position. The fact there isn't a flat-out denial suggests that that part at least is probably true.

I think we would be naive to think no players ever have any contact with chairman, I'm sure it happens at every club for various reasons, in some cases to undermine the manager get him out the door but I'm told this juicy storyline simply isn't true at Derby. 

If you believe all the rumours we have a owner flying drones over Moor Farm so he can watch training sessions to pick the team on Saturday whilst the manager is away banging players wives. He then sacks the manager for not playing the Derby Way when it's his team with players that he personally scouted and signed being put out.

Sounds like something you would see on Hollyoaks!

We need to remember that when you sack a lot of managers in a short space of time you will leave a trail of disgruntled ex employees, agents, family members. No surprise rumours like these are leaked to make the owner look a little loopy and manager completely blameless to help their search for a new job.

Quote

If there's no truth whatsoever in Pat Murphy's claim about managers/coaching staff spending evenings watching re-runs of recent matches at Morris's house the club really ought to challenge Murphy to either substantiate or withdraw it because it doesn't put the club in general or Mel Morris in particular in a good light.

I guess once you start publicly denying rumours then you need to respond to every single one otherwise when you stop conclusions will be jumped to. Rumours with clubs every day in the tabloids, you would need to employ a squasher just to deal with them all.

 

[Tombo]

34 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

Would have thought that applied to any industry ,looks like Mel is better at Candy Crush than football .

And your football expertise comes from where?

Stick to whatever it is you do.

[Ellafella]

16 hours ago, EssendonRam said:

I'd suggest Mel-related threads will continue until there's ANY sign that he's tempered the manner in which he's running the club....and should continue as a sign of disapproval.

I sincerely hope I've missed some signs but why would Rowett's appointment be cause of itself to think he's finally learned and adapting???

As for Mel applying best practice from business, it depends what you're referring to. Leadership groups? Perfectly standard. Player empowerment? Standard also.

Communicating via text message with managers and players? Strong form of instant communication; nothing inherently wrong with it at all as long as it neither becomes the sole form of communication nor serves to usurp reporting lines.

And that's the problem: they're peripheral issues and 'motherhood' ones at that.

The core competencies of an executive are (a) where Morris has demonstrably failed thus far; and (b) where he defies even basic business practice, namely:

1. Define the objectives of the business over the immediate, medium- and longer-terms and the strategy underpinning them. Under the previous owners, Derby had that and stuck to it. Can anyone honestly argue that Morris has defined anything for the club other than in general terms?

2. Oversee the success criteria by which the objectives shall be measured. Put in place the structure which reinforces the objectives and the criteria for measuring success.

3. Recruit the best experts to fill the structure, give them their KPIs, and monitor their accountabilities.

To put it bluntly, if short term form fluctuations are leading to repeated sackings, then the plan is nonsensical and irrelevant.

4. "Trust but verify". It's an MBA maxim.

Essentially, it means that the reporting and monitoring of people, processes, policies and outcomes must be both sufficient to give clear and early warnings of deviations from expectations but also not so intrusive that it become an end in itself.

It never replaces the need to conduct root cause analysis.

I could go on but ?I won't.

On every level, Morris's discharge of his accountabilities since taking over our club has been abysmal. Every single one. 

I disagree with your conclusions; I think that MM has done each of the 4 main issues:

1. I have been present at Fans' Forums when he has spelled them out. It also wouldn't surprise me if there was a detailed document within the Club (equivalent of a Corporate Plan) which spells these out in detail. Why would fans get to see the detail?

2. Again I am sure these are extant; but why would fans get to see the detail? The main KPIs are bums on seats at home games and away games, team position in the League, attractiveness of football, sustainability, budget and spend etc etc

The flaw in your argument is the bit  "...  short term form fluctuations are leading to repeated sackings, then the plan is nonsensical and irrelevant.". 

This part is debatable. Were the periods just prior to the sackings mere short-term form fluctuations? The football under Clement was tedious in the extreme. At 60-odd minutes on Boxing Day under Clement at home to Fulham we were 2-0 up and coasting; I never leave a game until the ref blows for time yet I was severely tested that day. It was stale and turgid and we were starting to fall down the league. That wasn't a one-off...it was a pattern; many games under PC were just plain dull. Pearson...clearly just plain wrong man for the job. Just goes to show how unreliable a job interview is (it has a predictive validity of 0.3 - 0.4 in statistical terms so one could do a great interview but still be hopeless in the role...and Pearson was). Pearson had the CV and the spiel at interview but his approach and methods were abysmal and he was rightly dismissed. We would have been relegated otherwise. MAC2 showed great promise but I think that the 10 match unbeaten run was a reflection of new manager bounce...we won quite a few of those games when we didn't play well and we didn't really see the team clicking. There was clearly a deterioration since Xmas and the team KPI's showed that (the Brighton game produced the least amount of running by the players of the season). MAC2 had lost the players; and other factors (like GR being available) meant the Club had to act ...to be decisive. 

So actually, you don't produce the evidence from which you draw the conclusion. I could just as easily argue that each time Mel has looked at the evidence that he has ensured is available and once he's clear that the trend/picture is reliable, he has acted by firing the root cause. That is what Leadership is about, notwithstanding the fact that he owns the Club and his money is running it. This is not to be confused with the FAWAZ approach which is just about focusing on results and pulling the trigger whimsically.

I don't think Mel's running of the Club is anything but a first class model for how it should be done. There's nothing wrong with having  players' mobile numbers or having late night DVD analyses with the manager and coaches. It says to me MM is engaged and taking a strong interest. It tells everybody below the top of the pyramid that they are accountable, as they should be. There are absolutely plenty of large organisations in this Country that are not run in this way but they would actually be more successful if they were.

Sniping topics about MM will continue...MM may even read them but it won't change how he is doing things and when we get to the Premiership he will be able to light a big fat Cuban cigar, blow smoke in your face and say..."told you".

I frankly don't care when/if we go up. I'm very happy with the GR appointment and I have faith that GR will do a first class job, and I'm looking forward to watching his team play.   

 

 

    

[rammieib]

5 hours ago, David said:

Would you be disappointed if I told you it wasn't true? None of it. 

I know many (not you personally) will want to use this as further factual proof of a interfering chairman but it's complete and utter fiction I have been reliably told.

David - I just don't believe there is no smoke without fire.

We know there are a number of things where he has got 'too close' to players and management for a fact. Do I think Pat Murphy would run a story if he wasn't confident in his sources - No I don't think he would. Could Mel have reviewed one game with Pearson and that became a case of "He reviews games with the manager" - yes quite possible. I also appreciate truths get distorted from one person to another.

Unfortunately I just don't like his approach to managing the club. Just my opinion. My questions at the Breakfast Club were honest and direct but respectful. I think you saw that. He answered them, don't necessarily agreed with the answers but he did answer them and I respect him for that. However, 6 managers later, his public statements on his intentions just make him look so poor at his decisions making and rash statements. "Paul Clement can be our Alex Ferguson" was one statement at a fans forum at PP, 4 months later he was shown the door for something I still don't understand today. (Not playing the Derby Way).

So, there we go - two different opinions, nothing wrong with that but I still wish we had sausages!

[Day]

18 minutes ago, rammieib said:

We know there are a number of things where he has got 'too close' to players and management for a fact. Do I think Pat Murphy would run a story if he wasn't confident in his sources - No I don't think he would. Could Mel have reviewed one game with Pearson and that became a case of "He reviews games with the manager" - yes quite possible. I also appreciate truths get distorted from one person to another.

I'm sure Pat Murphy trusted his source to run the story, don't doubt that for a second, you have to ask who that source would be and what would the motive be to leak this? You was there when we were told about the cameras so the staff can review training sessions, that turned into drones a few months later when Clement left.

Whilst I don't think Mel's tenure so far should be free from criticism, far from it, rumours such as these should be taken with a pinch of salt, not used as more factual proof of a meddling interfering chairman that's all. 

If any of these kind of rumours are true why has no manager walked as yet? All have been sacked.

[cheron85]

1 hour ago, David said:

Isn't that what fans want? Leave the football to the football men? The very thing people are accusing him of not doing

There was a piece of research done by one of the rail companies a few years ago (not southern, but don't remember who) where they decided to start giving a full and detailed explanation to passengers every time there was a delay... Saw a 90% reduction in complaints just because people are much more reasonable when they understand the reasoning - Even if they don't agree with it just knowing there is a proper reason stops speculation into some ulterior motive

I think it'd be useful to get a little more clarity on why each of the managers has been let go and who has been suggesting and making signings - People might not agree with the reasons but at least we'd have them. Still not sure why Clement was let go, still not sure on who chose any of his signings, fairly sure why Pearson was let go but who made decisions on ins and outs under him, who decided on bringing McClaren back and why was he dumped so hard again? Was he given money to spend in Jan or was he genuinely having faith in the squad that then let him down?

[cheron85]

23 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Do I think Pat Murphy would run a story if he wasn't confident in his sources - No I don't think he would. 

Guy gets paid specifically to write opinion pieces on Football - He'd run absolutely anything he wanted as long as he caveated it by saying it was his viewpoint on what he was seeing... Journos are all the same

[cannable]

12 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

There was a piece of research done by one of the rail companies a few years ago (not southern, but don't remember who) where they decided to start giving a full and detailed explanation to passengers every time there was a delay... Saw a 90% reduction in complaints just because people are much more reasonable when they understand the reasoning - Even if they don't agree with it just knowing there is a proper reason stops speculation into some ulterior motive

I think it'd be useful to get a little more clarity on why each of the managers has been let go and who has been suggesting and making signings - People might not agree with the reasons but at least we'd have them. Still not sure why Clement was let go, still not sure on who chose any of his signings, fairly sure why Pearson was let go but who made decisions on ins and outs under him, who decided on bringing McClaren back and why was he dumped so hard again? Was he given money to spend in Jan or was he genuinely having faith in the squad that then let him down?

As well as this, it's the fluctuations between managers he fit "The Derby Way" and who don't. I'm probably more frustrated with the appointments than the sackings.  

It doesn't make sense as to why we would appoint Wassall to get us playing again only to replace him with a direct 4-4-2 Pearson only to the replace him with McClaren who was tasked with reproducing our football again only to then replace him with another direct manager in Rowett! 

The idea was that each manager countinued to work of the other! 

I just don't get it anymore. What's the plan?