Mel interview with local media

[Cardifframs]

19 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Not sure I'd like a friend who relished taking me to court.

A friend wouldnt "allegedly " rip you off

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, Cardifframs said:

A friend wouldnt "allegedly " rip you off

It's a clumsy way of putting it though, don't you think.

'We welcome the opportunity to put our case forward' would achieve the same outcome, without sounding so wierd.

[Wolfie]

8 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

It's a clumsy way of putting it though, don't you think.

'We welcome the opportunity to put our case forward' would achieve the same outcome, without sounding so wierd.

It would sound like spin, though, and plenty on here would be attacking him for that.

Rush has to fight his corner. As does the club. Mel is just saying" Bring it on". I don't see anything wrong with that, to be honest.

[Ewe Ram]

I can't imagine someone with that kind of wealth failing to have the legal team capable of knowing whether they're right

[therealhantsram]

The key new bit of information in this interview, is that the sacking has nothing to do with Wasserman. Wonder what it does relate to then? 

[RadioactiveWaste]

8 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

The key new bit of information in this interview, is that the sacking has nothing to do with Wasserman. Wonder what it does relate to then? 

The other thing that interests me is was this situation "allowed" by Rush or "willed" by him (or neither, of course).

He mentioned trying back finance to contracts, so its not like he did a Ullswater steamer on Mel's desk kind of "gross misconduct"

[Boss]

I don't like the quote at all - "I anticipate this will end up in the courts and we’re relishing that opportunity".

Yes, it's positive in the way that Mel clearly feels he has the evidence and so on to get the correct judgement in court.

But should an owner of a club really be talking about an ex-employee like this? It's not exactly very professional in the way it reads. Think he needs to hire a new PR man to soften the blow of some of what he says, he really sounds like a dick at times.

[therams69]

Agree. I am really not a fan of him saying that he is friends with SR yet is relishing the fact he is going to court. Naturally if he has such evidence perhaps he should then follow up the request of releasing such evidence. Hate the fact our club is going to be publicized in a bad manner.

Our name in the footballing community is/has already been tarnished due to this. SR is a very respected man within the footballing world so I hope MM knows what he is going up against.

In terms of the contracts of everyone at the club. When MM first came on board he looked at every contract of every person including players. So if its anything related to this he knew many many months ago.

 

 

[Curtains]

8 minutes ago, Boss said:

I don't like the quote at all - "I anticipate this will end up in the courts and we’re relishing that opportunity".

Yes, it's positive in the way that Mel clearly feels he has the evidence and so on to get the correct judgement in court.

But should an owner of a club really be talking about an ex-employee like this? It's not exactly very professional in the way it reads. Think he needs to hire a new PR man to soften the blow of some of what he says, he really sounds like a dick at times.

He means I would assume he relishes the idea of clearing this all up out in the open. 

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

5 minutes ago, Boss said:

I don't like the quote at all - "I anticipate this will end up in the courts and we’re relishing that opportunity".

Yes, it's positive in the way that Mel clearly feels he has the evidence and so on to get the correct judgement in court.

But should an owner of a club really be talking about an ex-employee like this? It's not exactly very professional in the way it reads. Think he needs to hire a new PR man to soften the blow of some of what he says, he really sounds like a dick at times.

I don't see it as a problem to be honest. Every time somebody is sacked everybody jumps straight on the mad Mel bandwagon. Normally in football we as supporters never find out the true ins and outs of what goes on behind the scenes. If this goes to court, it will be public knowledge and Mel believes hel be fully vindicated in his decision to sack SR.

[Papahet]

Additional board members huh? Wouldn't be surprised to see Gadsby back ya' know...

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, therams69 said:

Agree. I am really not a fan of him saying that he is friends with SR yet is relishing the fact he is going to court. Naturally if he has such evidence perhaps he should then follow up the request of releasing such evidence. Hate the fact our club is going to be publicized in a bad manner.

Our name in the footballing community is/has already been tarnished due to this. SR is a very respected man within the footballing world so I hope MM knows what he is going up against.

In terms of the contracts of everyone at the club. When MM first came on board he looked at every contract of every person including players. So if its anything related to this he knew many many months ago.

 

 

We will find out when it goes to court who is the respected man after that and only then. 

[Stive Pesley]

Let’s try, just for a bit of fun,  to read between a few of the lines here.

This is a stage-managed press conference, and Mel is clearly being deliberate in his choice of  words.

He considered SR a friend. A friend that he trusted to run the club. He seems to be at great pains to point out quite specifically how “hands-off” he has been in comparison.

The allegations centre on gross misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty. We’ve seen lots of wide-ranging official definitions of the word fiduciary in the past week but when Mel puts a specific definition on it, then we can be sure that he’s concentrating on the aspects that apply to this particular situation. “someone looking after the interests of a company, making sure things are done in the best interests of the company”

In this case we can also be clear that Mel owns “the company” therefore he is to all intents and purposes referring to himself when he says “the company”. Also note that there is no talk of fraud or criminality, so the idea of fiduciary breach is potentially quite subjective here.

So the season has been an admitted “disaster” – we’ve failed to make the play-offs and Mel has undertaken a deep review of what went wrong. He’s uncovered some things he didn’t like, and Sam is out the door as a result. Bummer for Sam – if the season had gone to plan and we’d gone up, there would have been no need for such a review and Sam would still perhaps be in a job? Or maybe the review would have gone ahead and found the same issues? But no one cared because hey… promotion!

If this goes to court (I’m still not convinced that they won’t settle out of court) would you be surprised if Sam’s defence was that the board knew about it all along and no one had an issue with it until the season fell short? Could Mel making it clear he isn’t closely involved in the day to day running of the club be a pre-emptive strike there? Will it come down to trying to prove that the board were/weren’t aware of it all along? Will it come down to whoever has the best lawyer? Will Sam (as a trained lawyer) defend himself? Has Mel considered selling the film rights to this potentially juicy court case?

[eddie]

2 hours ago, nottingram said:

What do you think the drones are for?

Pollinating, silly.

[Angry Ram]

So, nobody is running the club at the moment.. That answers a lot of questions.

[AutoWindscreens]

Suggested formation for when Mel is picking the team:

 

[Mafiabob]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Agreed. We've been waiting too long for him to apologise for deliberately wasting the £50m he has put into the club.

Not about the money for me..... 

[cheron85]

43 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

The allegations centre on gross misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty. We’ve seen lots of wide-ranging official definitions of the word fiduciary in the past week but when Mel puts a specific definition on it, then we can be sure that he’s concentrating on the aspects that apply to this particular situation. “someone looking after the interests of a company, making sure things are done in the best interests of the company”

*** WARNING - SPECULATION AHEAD - PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANY OF MY WORDS AS FACT***

I wonder if he's ballsed up the finances - Whether on purpose or by accident - Which means the books we've submitted to the league are wrong? 

We've all be speculating for ages that with the transfer outlay and wages we're throwing around we should be in a much worse FFP position and I wonder whether Mel's investigation/review uncovered that Rush had messed up.

[Stive Pesley]

6 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

*** WARNING - SPECULATION AHEAD - PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANY OF MY WORDS AS FACT***

I wonder if he's ballsed up the finances - Whether on purpose or by accident - Which means the books we've submitted to the league are wrong? 

We've all be speculating for ages that with the transfer outlay and wages we're throwing around we should be in a much worse FFP position and I wonder whether Mel's investigation/review uncovered that Rush had messed up.

Seems unlikely. Sam may have had some kind of sign-off on them, but he's not an accountant. In the event that anyone got them wrong it would have had to have been the finance guy (Pearson?) and he's just been made a Director!

[RamNut]

2 hours ago, Cardifframs said:

A friend wouldnt "allegedly " rip you off

As yet there is no evidence that he has.

it could simply be that MM thinks SR has has been negligent in dealing with contracts, e.g. Darren bent - the announcement that due to a contract clause we now have DB for another season seemed to come out of the blue. Maybe there was an issue with the ipro contract. Maybe a review of the rest of the contract renewals has brought a few more darren bent get-out-of-jail clauses to light.

we don't know, and despite MM saying we will find out in due course, we might never know.

A bit like the john gregory issue?