What do you really think of Morris?

[eddie]

10 hours ago, BurtonRam7 said:

Take it you didn't make it to August then.

Players are back in training - so am I.

[Day]

9 hours ago, 86 points said:

Yep - the questionnaire is pretty assumptive to be fair. If we don't want him 'meddling' then he can't be responsible for signings and sales. Can't have it both ways.

Of course you can, meddling is perfectly acceptable when it's a player you want to keep, when it's not he has to stand back and keep his nose out. 

Mel needs to understand these situations better and listen to the opinions on fans over his manager, maybe we should submit our keep lists at the start of each window and the top 3 voted for are not to be sold regardless of the managers wishes. 

Seems a fair way of doing things.

I also don't understand why he doesn't call a fans forum to discuss bids that have been made, consulted with us so we can help in the negotiations, just because he owns the club doesn't mean he can get away with selling any players the manager thinks should go for the best possible price on the table.

It's this kind of amateur ownership that has annoyed fans. 

[Angry Ram]

26 minutes ago, David said:

Of course you can, meddling is perfectly acceptable when it's a player you want to keep, when it's not he has to stand back and keep his nose out. 

Mel needs to understand these situations better and listen to the opinions on fans over his manager, maybe we should submit our keep lists at the start of each window and the top 3 voted for are not to be sold regardless of the managers wishes. 

Seems a fair way of doing things.

I also don't understand why he doesn't call a fans forum to discuss bids that have been made, consulted with us so we can help in the negotiations, just because he owns the club doesn't mean he can get away with selling any players the manager thinks should go for the best possible price on the table.

It's this kind of amateur ownership that has annoyed fans. 

Of course he had to meddle, he signs the cheques, he has set the ethos, he appoints a manager who will deliver his vision. So ultimately it is his problem if the manager he has appointed goes off of that vision. It could be argued that he has already done that on numerous occasions within his tenure and he has reacted.

Noboby expects what you have written in your tongue in cheek post. So to follow your line in extreme example.. Please explain what exactly you this a Chairman/Owner is responsible for?

Root cause. He appoints the manager knowing his style, that manager then buys hoof ball merchants consistent with his past record. Where was the mistake? 

 

[Day]

34 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Of course he had to meddle, he signs the cheques, he has set the ethos, he appoints a manager who will deliver his vision. So ultimately it is his problem if the manager he has appointed goes off of that vision. It could be argued that he has already done that on numerous occasions within his tenure and he has reacted.

Noboby expects what you have written in your tongue in cheek post. So to follow your line in extreme example.. Please explain what exactly you this a Chairman/Owner is responsible for?

Root cause. He appoints the manager knowing his style, that manager then buys hoof ball merchants consistent with his past record. Where was the mistake? 

 

I won't argue with any criticism on the appointments he has made, at the same time it is worth remembering what Sam said not long before his departure, all appointments and sackings are a group decision and Mel does not act alone. 

Even so, it is Mel who is sat in the throne and will be ultimately be held responsible, fans need a single figure to vent their frustrations at, same as any goal conceded is entirely Keogh's fault. 

Under GSE we had a group of owners who for a long time were unknown, there is no doubt who is in charge now which is why I think we're seeing topics like these pop up after every decision we don't agree on.

My arguments come in over transfers, not appointments. Way back when Mel first arrived, we was sold a vision of a head coach, easy transition between managers with the playing style remaining the same. Large number of fans didn't, they preferred the old school method of a proper manager, in total control. 

Without going over old ground, recent transfers saw more vocal calls for a proper manager in control that is accountable for everything, no questions, fans had that one man to judge the work he does.

Enter Nigel Pearson, hopefully not bowing to fan pressure.

Chris Martin leaves and it's blame Mel. It wasn't blame Mel for appointing Pesrson, it was blame Mel for not blocking the Martin transfer despite having that accountable manager.

Will Hughes leaves and it's blame Mel, not blame Mel for appointing Rowett, it's blame Mel for not blocking the Hughes transfer despite having that accountable manager.

I don't see any problems being critical of both appointments, football is a game of opinions. But it's not, it's being critical of him for not blocking transfers, then 5 minutes later saying he shouldn't meddle in first team affairs and calling for stability.

If a manager comes to you and says X player can leave, he's not in my plans or he wants out, let's move him on. Saying no to that manager is undermining his decisions, you might get away with one or two of those but at some point your manager will not feel like he has the backing of the club which throws any hope of stability out the window.

So my question not to you Angry but to those that think Mel should have blocked the Martin and Hughes deals, do you want the power taken away from Rowett, do you want Mel in charge of transfers deciding who should leave and who should come in?

If yes, what should Mel do if those players are not being played, should he ask Rowett to play them? Are we happy for him to enter the dressing room and give his team a pep talk.

Or should he back his manager 100%, give him the tools he wants to do his job and if it goes tits up criticise him for appointing a manager that goes against the Derby Way?

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, David said:

I won't argue with any criticism on the appointments he has made, at the same time it is worth remembering what Sam said not long before his departure, all appointments and sackings are a group decision and Mel does not act alone. 

Even so, it is Mel who is sat in the throne and will be ultimately be held responsible, fans need a single figure to vent their frustrations at, same as any goal conceded is entirely Keogh's fault. 

Under GSE we had a group of owners who for a long time were unknown, there is no doubt who is in charge now which is why I think we're seeing topics like these pop up after every decision we don't agree on.

My arguments come in over transfers, not appointments. Way back when Mel first arrived, we was sold a vision of a head coach, easy transition between managers with the playing style remaining the same. Large number of fans didn't, they preferred the old school method of a proper manager, in total control. 

Without going over old ground, recent transfers saw more vocal calls for a proper manager in control that is accountable for everything, no questions, fans had that one man to judge the work he does.

Enter Nigel Pearson, hopefully not bowing to fan pressure.

Chris Martin leaves and it's blame Mel. It wasn't blame Mel for appointing Pesrson, it was blame Mel for not blocking the Martin transfer despite having that accountable manager.

Will Hughes leaves and it's blame Mel, not blame Mel for appointing Rowett, it's blame Mel for not blocking the Hughes transfer despite having that accountable manager.

I don't see any problems being critical of both appointments, football is a game of opinions. But it's not, it's being critical of him for not blocking transfers, then 5 minutes later saying he shouldn't meddle in first team affairs and calling for stability.

If a manager comes to you and says X player can leave, he's not in my plans or he wants out, let's move him on. Saying no to that manager is undermining his decisions, you might get away with one or two of those but at some point your manager will not feel like he has the backing of the club which throws any hope of stability out the window.

So my question not to you Angry but to those that think Mel should have blocked the Martin and Hughes deals, do you want the power taken away from Rowett, do you want Mel in charge of transfers deciding who should leave and who should come in?

If yes, what should Mel do if those players are not being played, should he ask Rowett to play them? Are we happy for him to enter the dressing room and give his team a pep talk.

Or should he back his manager 100%, give him the tools he wants to do his job and if it goes tits up criticise him for appointing a manager that goes against the Derby Way?

Agree it's an impossible job to a degree. I tend to not get too stressed up over transfers, we never know the full story from either side. Of course it hurts when a fav leaves as with Will but I firmly believe Will has been badly advised. Hopefully (not for Wills sake) but we could easily switch with Watford next season.. Did we sell Will cheap? From the outside, yes.. I don't know all the contractual details, so can't really comment bar speculation. Gutted he has gone to Watford though.

Transfers... Another lottery to a degree. All you can do is pick a player that fits your system and hope he settles and produces. What is indefensible is buying a player just because he was available with no idea how he will fit in. I am no owner of a football club but if a manager came to me and said, look Mr Angry, we play the Barca way but I want to sign Vinnie Jones for 12 mil.. I might ask a couple of questions.. 

I want an owner who will back his manager but I want an owner who makes that appointment with plan (we have not had one since Clement). He sets the corner stone and hopefully the rest follows. 

[Comrade 86]

4 hours ago, David said:

Of course you can, meddling is perfectly acceptable when it's a player you want to keep, when it's not he has to stand back and keep his nose out. 

Mel needs to understand these situations better and listen to the opinions on fans over his manager, maybe we should submit our keep lists at the start of each window and the top 3 voted for are not to be sold regardless of the managers wishes. 

Seems a fair way of doing things.

I also don't understand why he doesn't call a fans forum to discuss bids that have been made, consulted with us so we can help in the negotiations, just because he owns the club doesn't mean he can get away with selling any players the manager thinks should go for the best possible price on the table.

It's this kind of amateur ownership that has annoyed fans. 

 

3 hours ago, David said:

I won't argue with any criticism on the appointments he has made, at the same time it is worth remembering what Sam said not long before his departure, all appointments and sackings are a group decision and Mel does not act alone. 

Even so, it is Mel who is sat in the throne and will be ultimately be held responsible, fans need a single figure to vent their frustrations at, same as any goal conceded is entirely Keogh's fault. 

Under GSE we had a group of owners who for a long time were unknown, there is no doubt who is in charge now which is why I think we're seeing topics like these pop up after every decision we don't agree on.

My arguments come in over transfers, not appointments. Way back when Mel first arrived, we was sold a vision of a head coach, easy transition between managers with the playing style remaining the same. Large number of fans didn't, they preferred the old school method of a proper manager, in total control. 

Without going over old ground, recent transfers saw more vocal calls for a proper manager in control that is accountable for everything, no questions, fans had that one man to judge the work he does.

Enter Nigel Pearson, hopefully not bowing to fan pressure.

Chris Martin leaves and it's blame Mel. It wasn't blame Mel for appointing Pesrson, it was blame Mel for not blocking the Martin transfer despite having that accountable manager.

Will Hughes leaves and it's blame Mel, not blame Mel for appointing Rowett, it's blame Mel for not blocking the Hughes transfer despite having that accountable manager.

I don't see any problems being critical of both appointments, football is a game of opinions. But it's not, it's being critical of him for not blocking transfers, then 5 minutes later saying he shouldn't meddle in first team affairs and calling for stability.

If a manager comes to you and says X player can leave, he's not in my plans or he wants out, let's move him on. Saying no to that manager is undermining his decisions, you might get away with one or two of those but at some point your manager will not feel like he has the backing of the club which throws any hope of stability out the window.

So my question not to you Angry but to those that think Mel should have blocked the Martin and Hughes deals, do you want the power taken away from Rowett, do you want Mel in charge of transfers deciding who should leave and who should come in?

If yes, what should Mel do if those players are not being played, should he ask Rowett to play them? Are we happy for him to enter the dressing room and give his team a pep talk.

Or should he back his manager 100%, give him the tools he wants to do his job and if it goes tits up criticise him for appointing a manager that goes against the Derby Way?

You're bang in form today David 

[BobbyD]

23 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

So was Vincent Tan, Fawaz, the geezer at Leeds.. That's okay then, I am sure they were all trying.

You could always stay off a football forum if you don't like potentially what is written. Have we got rid of freedom of speach as well?

So, so tiresome and boring

Maybe you should stay off a football forum if you don't like what you hear ?

etc, etc, etc, etc 

[Anon]

24 minutes ago, BobbyD said:

So, so tiresome and boring

Maybe you should stay off a football forum if you don't like what you hear ?

etc, etc, etc, etc 

Some people find obsequious arse kissing boring and tiresome. We don't tell people guilty of that to go elsewhere.

[BobbyD]

So, so tiresome and boring

Maybe you should stay off a football forum if you don't like what you hear ?

etc, etc, etc, etc 

[tomsdubs]

Didn't Mel say that he let other people control too much? That he only worked at the club 1 day per week at most?

[Pearl Ram]

11 minutes ago, BobbyD said:

So, so tiresome and boring

Maybe you should stay off a football forum if you don't like what you hear ?

etc, etc, etc, etc 

Wouldn't the same apply to yourself ? If you don't like what you're reading.... 

[DEL]

Hey @EastHertsRam good to see you back on here. 

[Pearl Ram]

Ta pal, hope you're well. 

[eustonstation]

Once the tunnel is widened and the walls are decorated with a mosaic of past legends, bathed in neon, so that we can get a cool walk out onto the pitch, his work will be complete.

Love Mel. 

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, BobbyD said:

So, so tiresome and boring

Maybe you should stay off a football forum if you don't like what you hear ?

etc, etc, etc, etc 

Good one Bobby.. Thanks for joining the debate.. It's been a blast. 

Not sure I will sleep tonight 

 

Funny how I can debate with David and believe me we don't always agree. But we never get petty..

[EssendonRam]

On ‎25‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 17:13, BramcoteRam84 said:

Mel should be commended for sticking his head above the parapet and taking the club on. He's a local guy and definitely has a genuine love for the club as otherwise he would be mad to have took on what is a thankless task. We should be greatful for that.

However, as owner the buck stops with him. He's accountable for the decisions he makes and has to deal with whatever flak comes his way. His managerial decisions so far have been poor and this is the main reason for the recent instability. Recruitment has also been poor, but you have to back your managers. 

I think Rowett has always been the man Mel has wanted as Manager, he's just been unavailable when we have been recruiting. He has to give Rowett time. If he does, then the problems created by his previous appointments could be corrected and we may just move forward into the premier league and enjoy a period of success. At that point, Mel will be lauded as the great owner, he's one of our own etc, and rightly so.

If he buckles and sacks Rowett during a poor run next season, then he'll continue to make the club laughing stock and we'll go nowhere

I've long had this impression - it was on exactly this basis that I always assumed that Mac 2.0 was never going beyond the season - and I agree with you on the conclusions you draw following on from that.

If Rowett doesn't get the time (almost literally no matter what), then my scepticism and criticism of his stewardship will be total.

[rammieib]

If we're midtable at X-max, Mel sacks Rowett and then spins a whole lot of crap about the players not trusting him, the coaches poor and the tea lady not being happy, most people on here would be suckers for believing him and saying he got it right.

MM has employed a manager not following the Derby way. He contradicts himself with every appointment. In my eyes he will always be embarrassing for the club. I hope his legacy will be the investment into the academy.