Where is Sam?

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, feisty said:

That's precisely what shareholders do usually. They own and oversee strategy at a Board level; and delegate day-to-day running to an executive team. It's precisely what one would expect. 

Not clear what model of corporate governance you expect?

You are comparing a football club with 2 shareholders to, one of whom is a very successful businessman, to multi national companies.

As far as I am aware the day to day running of the team is delegated to the manager and the business side of things delegated to Sam Rush.

I am yet to see any real evidence of what MM does within the club on a day to day basis.

 

[Kinder]

13 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Are they publicly listed shares? It may not be that he has to sell his stake because he is no longer an employee.

I imagine, however, that if Rush leaves Mel will also want to have his shares off him as well - and Rush I dont think would be particularly keen to have a5% stake in a club that just forced him out.

 

I believe it's a private company.  It's usual for there to be a shareholders' agreement in place to cover situations where one shareholder leaves and no longer has any direct involvement in the business.  The majority shareholder wouldn't want a small stakeholder to hang around and make a nuisance of themselves, particularly if they leave on bad terms, so there would be a leaver clause where the exiting guy has to offer / sell his shares to the remaining shareholder(s).  

All theoretical as we have no idea what's going on, but if Sam is leaving then buying his shares back will probably be an additional cost on top of compensation / leagal fees.

[Gritty]

It isn't clear to me that delegation does happen sufficiently; e.g. Mel going into the changing room to yell at players; commenting on formations, and that Hanson wasn't playing enough

 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, feisty said:

It isn't clear to me that delegation does happen sufficiently; e.g. Mel going into the changing room to yell at players; commenting on formations, and that Hanson wasn't playing enough

Ok, so he admitted the dressing room incident.

Where has he commented on formations or Hanson?

Did that lead to a change of formation or Hanson being included in the team?

Don't most fans make comments about the team/formations/players?

[Mostyn6]

Getting rid of Sam could be as wise as Birmingham getting rid of Rowett in my opinion. 

Only fans of Clough had anything bad to say about Rush before Mel arrived. 

Some fans seem reluctant or unable to judge Mel because he has thrown cash around and they'd feel ungrateful. Those fans have sold out. 

Rush sanctioned clever deals before Mel arrived. 

[Gritty]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ok, so he admitted the dressing room incident.

Where has he commented on formations or Hanson?

Did that lead to a change of formation or Hanson being included in the team?

Don't most fans make comments about the team/formations/players?

In the statement about Clement's sacking. And yes, we reverted to 4-3-3 (Clement had just gone to 4-2-3-1) and Hanson then was more involved under Wassall)

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Getting rid of Sam could be as wise as Birmingham getting rid of Rowett in my opinion. 

Only fans of Clough had anything bad to say about Rush before Mel arrived. 

Some fans seem reluctant or unable to judge Mel because he has thrown cash around and they'd feel ungrateful. Those fans have sold out. 

Rush sanctioned clever deals before Mel arrived. 

Nowt as fickle as football fans though.

You probably only need to look back to Butterfield/Johnson threads to have people gushing over him.

If squad trimming is the order of the day, SR could be more important to us than ever.

[DEL]

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 10:21, CLOUGH1971-72 said:

He's a snake. He's been terrible for this club. We've archived nothing in his time here. Should never have sacked Clough. He's a former football agent and we all know they are snakes. All that money he's wasted and we're no better off. Good riddance rush you snake

Terrible? Lol. 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, feisty said:

In the statement about Clement's sacking. 

Could you provide the quote? 

I've read his quotes from BBC and DET websites and can't see where he mentioned formations or Hanson?

[Gritty]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Could you provide the quote? 

I've read his quotes from BBC and DET websites and can't see where he mentioned formations or Hanson?

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-mel-morris-steve-nicholson-reports/story-28700411-detail/story.html

 

 

[Gritty]

and another:

 

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-chairman-mel-morris-reveals-what-a-manager-told-him-about-4-4-2/story-29799056-detail/story.html

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

About £1.4m at a guess

The impairment loss of £408,556 against trade debtors could relate to this. Although the deal was pulled this year,the company may have been struggling the previous year,but the arrangement may have been allowed to continue in the hope that it might pull through.However,if the probability hadn't been great,then impairment would have been the correct step.

I have to stress this is pure speculation on my part,but I struggle to find any other trade debtor that would be large enough to warrant an impairment of that size.

 

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, feisty said:

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-mel-morris-steve-nicholson-reports/story-28700411-detail/story.html

 

 

Thank you.

Missed the part about Jamie Hanson. 

Looking at the stats from that season he featured in the squad 13 times under PC and 12 under DW.

[Gritty]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Thank you.

Missed the part about Jamie Hanson. 

Looking at the stats from that season he featured in the squad 13 times under PC and 12 under DW.

point is that Morris commented. See other link re: formations too

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, ramblur said:

The impairment loss of £408,556 against trade debtors could relate to this. Although the deal was pulled this year,the company may have been struggling the previous year,but the arrangement may have been allowed to continue in the hope that the company might pull through.However,if the probability wasn't great,then impairment would have been the correct step.

I have to stress this is pure speculation on my part,but I struggle to find any other trade debtor that would be large enough to warrant an impairment of that size.

There was absolutely no science to my guess other than it was a £7m over 10 year deal (if I remember correctly).

I had made the same assumption about the impairment to  a honest.

But there again it could be Forest failing to pay us for tickets and repairing the damage caused to our toilets!!!

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, feisty said:

point is that Morris commented. See other link re: formations too

As most fans do.

He also commented that he has absolutely no influence over matchday squads.

The second link was him commenting on what another manager had said to him regarding our formation.

Would it be stupid of him to ignore advice from what professional football managers are telling him?

[eddie]

59 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Were they HIS decisions?

Pearson the only hiring I didn't agree with. Not agreed with any of the sackings because I don't think any of the managers have been given long enough, however not been overly fussed about any of them.

Although the thread is about Sam Rush possibly being potted, I was suggesting that the hiring and firing was down to Mel, if not exactly acting alone, then at least as the man with the final yea or nay. I've never been sure what Sam did, what his overall responsibilities were and whether or not the appointment of the managers was 100% down to him. I only met him once apart from at the 'breakfast club', and that was to put my case that the club had made a serious mistake over its pricing policy with respect to disabled fans.

[ram1964]

51 minutes ago, eddie said:

Although the thread is about Sam Rush possibly being potted, I was suggesting that the hiring and firing was down to Mel, if not exactly acting alone, then at least as the man with the final yea or nay. I've never been sure what Sam did, what his overall responsibilities were and whether or not the appointment of the managers was 100% down to him. I only met him once apart from at the 'breakfast club', and that was to put my case that the club had made a serious mistake over its pricing policy with respect to disabled fans.

I think the club made a serious mistake over its pricing policy with respect to disabled players ?

[Ninos]

4 hours ago, LazloW said:

I still don't understand how either Mel or Sam get the blame for the players we've signed.  All they have done is back the manager/recruitment department (yuk) in providing the funds necessary to sign the players they presumably wanted.  They should be applauded for that.  If the signings haven't worked out then, well, that's football!  No guarantees with any signing, and as I've banged on about before, there would be considerable moaning if either of them had blocked a transfer because they weren't keen on a player or wouldn't shell out the cash.  Don't get it.  

For all the criticisms they get over players' contracts and all that guff, well 99.9% of that is wild speculation anyway and nobody knows how much players are getting paid or the clauses in contracts or anything else.  

Wrong. They must shoulder the blame as they authorise and negotiate.

Problem is they are on record as having stated the overall plan was to promote from within, fostering a plan of bringing youngsters into the first team, and increasing the value of players. You can't just sign and sign and sign players, especially players with very limited potential.

Allowing managers to bring in any player to suit their fancy should have been vetoed at the time because it was contrary to the stated plan. If you don't have a plan then fair enough, but we did.

And where they can again be doubly faulted is they brought in the wrong managers who never fully embraced the vision OR they never had the strength of character to say no. Clement was especially bad here.

just saying you will give the manager the funds to do whatever they want sounds nice but it is only acceptable if they are 100% on the same wavelength. So we hired managers who pretended ? to buy into what we want to do but were so results driven they ditch the plan.

 We bang on about how great an academy is yet we never see the players - meanwhile down the road they blood youth, even prematurely: but look what happened : it's Oliver Burke, 19, sold to Leipzig for 13m, Ben Brereton 17, now valued at 10m and wanted by Liverpool, and young Ben Osborn, 4m wanted by Newcastle. They play their upcoming stars. Is their academy so wonderful or are the talented young players just getting the chance to play, in contrast to ours at Derby.

The proof is walking the walk not talking the talk. If our academy is great then give the players the opportunities to play. We've blocked them at every turn and even now we talk about it, there are gaps in the side, and they still aren't playing! 

 

[RoyMac5]

15 minutes ago, Ninos said:

We bang on about how great an academy is yet we never see the players - meanwhile down the road they blood youth, even prematurely: but look what happened : it's Oliver Burke, 19, sold to Leipzig for 13m, Ben Brereton 17, now valued at 10m and wanted by Liverpool, and young Ben Osborn, 4m wanted by Newcastle. They play their upcoming stars. Is their academy so wonderful or are the talented young players just getting the chance to play, in contrast to ours at Derby.

How do you think that affects their league position?