Dear Uncle Mel (v2.0)

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, Moist One said:

@Paul71 feel free to read my post again, but take your time this time. I'm not enjoying your misrepresenting my post or taking my thoughts out of context. You're not normally that kind of poster, but so far, every bit you've responded to is responding to something I've not actually said in the way you're presenting it.

So what did you mean by this bit?

'The actual solution in my opinion Uncle Mel, is for you to absolve yourself of all responsibility, even if it means you spitting your dummy and refusing to invest money. We can handle that as a club.'

Hardly seems constructive.

[Mostyn6]

1 minute ago, Paul71 said:

So what did you mean by this bit?

'The actual solution in my opinion Uncle Mel, is for you to absolve yourself of all responsibility, even if it means you spitting your dummy and refusing to invest money. We can handle that as a club.'

Hardly seems constructive.

it's related to this bit "I do have a personal criticism, which may be unfounded, but is borne out of the way people defend you, and your poor handling of the club, and that is simply that spending money on the club, does not give you carte-blanche to destroy it. Now you may not believe you have the right to destroy it, but when defending you, fans often cite your investment as justification for you doing whatever you like. If I am being honest, I never wanted money thrown at the club"

[tomsdubs]

Didn't Mel say he was only working at the club 1 day a week and all the sackings were done on Rush's recommendation as he was running the club?

[cheron85]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

He doesn't have to run the club to own the club

We don't actually know that he has been running the club - All the information I've had 2nd hand is that he'd left Rush to run it and has only been hands on since Rush left

20 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Sums it up nicely, good owner, rubbish at the whole operational side of running a football club.

Since Sam Rush was sacked we seem to be unravelling into a mess, I'm sure the Kieftenbeld transfer saga would not have happened under his watch.

We've been unraveling for a lot longer than that  - And for me this was the first transfer window in a while we've identified targets we needed, got them at a decent price and overall made money (not a high priority that last one but if we're talking about running a club well it's got to be a consideration) - Had they made a better/quicker move on a proper defensive midfielder and maybe been able to move on a winger or 2 I'd say we'd have had a very good transfer window

[GadFly]

43 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

So lets just assume that's not something he wants to do, what are the other alternatives?

The only alternative appears to be "more of the same". 

[Sith Happens]

8 minutes ago, Moist One said:

it's related to this bit "I do have a personal criticism, which may be unfounded, but is borne out of the way people defend you, and your poor handling of the club, and that is simply that spending money on the club, does not give you carte-blanche to destroy it. Now you may not believe you have the right to destroy it, but when defending you, fans often cite your investment as justification for you doing whatever you like. If I am being honest, I never wanted money thrown at the club"

I get all that, but assuming he reads your letter, which i doubt, but if he did its hardly constructive.

You have suggested that Sam Rush was sacked for nothing more than trying to improve the club, you have no idea the full ins and outs and nor should we really expect all of them to be made public.

You have then told him the solution is for him to absolve himself of all responsibility and used words like 'spitting your dummy out', once again not constructive.

So you don't want him running the club anymore, and accept this is likely to mean him no longer funding us (remember funding goes much further than player signings).

So him running the club as it is isn't working, him still owning it but letting it stagnate through total lack of investment is hardly an option, so what is the next option?

[DEL]

I'm sure MM will ignore the letter anyway. 

[tomsdubs]

It's a pretty terrible post to be honest, seems ignore everything Mel has said in interviews and Q&As. Not constructive at all, a rant from ignorance and lack of any real information. Personal attack on the owner of our club as some sort of scapegoat.

[Mostyn6]

2 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I get all that, but assuming he reads your letter, which i doubt, but if he did its hardly constructive.

You have suggested that Sam Rush was sacked for nothing more than trying to improve the club, you have no idea the full ins and outs and nor should we really expect all of them to be made public.

You have then told him the solution is for him to absolve himself of all responsibility and used words like 'spitting your dummy out', once again not constructive.

So you don't want him running the club anymore, and accept this is likely to mean him no longer funding us (remember funding goes much further than player signings).

So him running the club as it is isn't working, him still owning it but letting it stagnate through total lack of investment is hardly an option, so what is the next option?

Who said it was constructive? Who said it needs to be? It's my opinion! My feelings written down. I don't claim to be the solver of all problems DCFC!

My comments re: Sam Rush are directly linked to the comments from the club. Trumped up terminology. I expect that Rush will be the one receiving a pay-off and not the other way around, but we will see.

The 'spitting his dummy' is based upon his reaction to my criticism of him going into the dressing room, which was akin to him spitting his dummy. Basically, fans thinking he'll pick up his football and take it home if he doesn't get his own way could be right, I am not so sure. But I would rather have a stable club with responsible budgets and leadership, than a meglomaniac, that's not saying Mel is one or the other.

As for funding, I stand by what I said. If things need funding outside of turnover, then it's unsustainable and could ruin the club later down the line, so that funding is not something to be proud of.

the option is "stop making stupid decisions", and if you cannot stop making stupid decisions, than the answer is "stop making ANY decisions"

[Mostyn6]

7 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

It's a pretty terrible post to be honest, seems ignore everything Mel has said in interviews and Q&As. Not constructive at all, a rant from ignorance and lack of any real information. Personal attack on the owner of our club as some sort of scapegoat.

you're not very bright are you. Are you an ostrich?

[Mafiabob]

About time someone joined me and @Angry Ram in what we think...... well done @Moist One 

Up to you Morris, just about lost faith in you and the way you operate..... time the biggest thing you have wasted during your tenure..... money doesn't make you right all the time..... I said be careful what you wished for couple years back..... 

Once again, if he wasn't from Derby..... their would be uproar from us lot.

Kind Regards Andy Margett..... supporter of Derby County. 

[ramsbottom]

3 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

About time someone joined me and @Angry Ram in what we think...... well done @Moist One 

Up to you Morris, just about lost faith in you and the way you operate..... time the biggest thing you have wasted during your tenure..... money doesn't make you right all the time..... I said be careful what you wished for couple years back..... 

Once again, if he wasn't from Derby..... their would be uproar from us lot.

Kind Regards Andy Margett..... supporter of Derby County. 

I feel there's a lot of truth in that.  If he was a Fawaz or Carson Yeung, the pitchforks would've been out a while ago...

[cheron85]

9 minutes ago, Moist One said:

My comments re: Sam Rush are directly linked to the comments from the club. Trumped up terminology. I expect that Rush will be the one receiving a pay-off and not the other way around, but we will see.

You're making assumptions again based your own bias - You have no idea what happened - And I would imagine he'll get a payoff yes, because generally speaking it's much easier to do that (especially when the other party has shares in the club) than have to fight a protracted legal battle - It doesn't mean anything

7 minutes ago, Moist One said:

you're not very bright are you. Are you an ostrich?

Uncalled for - I'm bright enough and I don't agree with most of what you say - Doesn't mean people who disagree with you aren't bright

I think you seem to have some kind of vendetta against Morris - We have pretty much no information about the running of the club before, during or after Rushes time - Yet you seem to be happy to make a series of assumptions which glorify Rush (a man who we can point to as having made ONE good decision in his time with us, invested NOTHING into the club and made a LOT of money in the process of being with us - For both him and his ex-company) and lambaste Morris

[tomsdubs]

21 minutes ago, Moist One said:

you're not very bright are you. Are you an ostrich?

Yeah i'm not very bright. You're smarter than everyone that disagrees with you. I was blinded by your immense genius and wisdom.

The whole premise of what you say was that Mel was making terrible decisions when he pretty much said Rush ran the club for those decisions. But lets not let facts get in the way of your amazing insight and genius.

[Mostyn6]

7 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

You're making assumptions again based your own bias - You have no idea what happened - And I would imagine he'll get a payoff yes, because generally speaking it's much easier to do that (especially when the other party has shares in the club) than have to fight a protracted legal battle - It doesn't mean anything

Uncalled for - I'm bright enough and I don't agree with most of what you say - Doesn't mean people who disagree with you aren't bright

I think you seem to have some kind of vendetta against Morris - We have pretty much no information about the running of the club before, during or after Rushes time - Yet you seem to be happy to make a series of assumptions which glorify Rush (a man who we can point to as having made ONE good decision in his time with us, invested NOTHING into the club and made a LOT of money in the process of being with us - For both him and his ex-company) and lambaste Morris

in all that lengthy post, I think only one sentence refers to Rush, in that sentence, half is fact-based, half is speculation. If you can make a vendetta out of that, and a "series" of assumptions, you need therapy. Also, "lambast" Morris? My criticism of Morris is based on where we were when he arrived, and where we are now after a series of ill-fated interferences!

[Mostyn6]

38 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

It's a pretty terrible post to be honest, seems ignore everything Mel has said in interviews and Q&As. Not constructive at all, a rant from ignorance and lack of any real information. Personal attack on the owner of our club as some sort of scapegoat.

perhaps you deserve a better considered response then?

Okay, "terrible post", that's subjective.

"Ignore what Mel says", well I defended him based on what he says, if you doubt it, go back to breakfastgate, that said, people say a lot of things in interviews, and if I scrutinised what he says, then surely I would refer to:-

• the Derby way
• Clement being our Ferguson
• promotion is not important
• Wassall can earn himself a shot at the job
• Derby won't sell our players cheaply
• the manager will use academy players

"a rant from ignorance". Not sure you know what a rant is.

"lack of any real information". Which bits? 5 managers? that's real. Rush leaving? that's real. Lots of things have changed? that's real. Lack of Sausage and Bacon?! that's real. Mel making bad decisions? (I think) that's real. People blindly supporting Mel cos he's spent money on the club? that is definitely real! 

"Personal Attack/Scapegoat". Nah, it's not an attack, it's an opinion. Scapegoats are sacrificial when someone else is the reason, this is not scapegoating, as Mel is the man that fires the gun.

[cheron85]

3 minutes ago, Moist One said:

in all that lengthy post, I think only one sentence refers to Rush, in that sentence, half is fact-based, half is speculation. If you can make a vendetta out of that, and a "series" of assumptions, you need therapy. Also, "lambast" Morris? My criticism of Morris is based on where we were when he arrived, and where we are now after a series of ill-fated interferences!

This is your reference to Rush - And I stated that you were 'glorifying' him - Which I think the below does

2 hours ago, Moist One said:

I suggested keeping the faith in the then CEO Sam Rush, as he had been pivotal in the recent rise in quality, excitement, league position, media coverage and ambition. Since that letter, things have changed! Sam has been relieved of his duties in somewhat ambiguous circumstances, against an accusation of what surmises as "spending the club's money trying to improve the club"... Hmmm.

On the rest of your points - The vendetta I referred to you having is against Morris not Rush - So I'm not sure why you think it's in reference to Rush? Do you maybe not understand what a vendetta is? In which case Google can probably enlighten you

Finally - Overall yes, we seem to be in a worse place now than when Morris came in - However what proof do you have that this is Morris' fault? You seem to be quite happy to believe rumour and speculation about Morris but deny more solid evidence against Rush - As far as I can tell it's been Rush in the driving seat on footballing matters until this summer with Morris there to provide the petrol money - However if you have proof otherwise I would love to see it - All I see so far is your wild speculation based on rumour

[Ninos]

1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Sums it up nicely, good owner, rubbish at the whole operational side of running a football club.

Since Sam Rush was sacked we seem to be unravelling into a mess, I'm sure the Kieftenbeld transfer saga would not have happened under his watch.

Dislike this post.

Apart from not getting near enough for Hughes and the Bryson Keith deadline issue, our current dealings in terms of getting a lot for a little have been excellent.

When we had Rush we overpaid by a ton for mediocre players who've dragged us back. And they were put on long contracts too. So many, a lot of whom barely played. Rowett has been savvy in the market. Who else could have got rid of Butterfield even temporarily, and on top of it get a striker out of it. Give me a break on Sam Rush. 

[Angry Ram]

44 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

It's a pretty terrible post to be honest, seems ignore everything Mel has said in interviews and Q&As. Not constructive at all, a rant from ignorance and lack of any real information. Personal attack on the owner of our club as some sort of scapegoat.

Has not Mel not ignored everything he says in interviews and Q&As? Has he delivered on anything he has said in those interviews?

Not a 'scapegoat' but someone asking pertinent questions of the owner and having opinions? Why should that not be allowed. He needs checks and balances just like everyone.

[Mostyn6]

1 minute ago, cheron85 said:

This is your reference to Rush - And I stated that you were 'glorifying' him - Which I think the below does

On the rest of your points - The vendetta I referred to you having is against Morris not Rush - So I'm not sure why you think it's in reference to Rush? Do you maybe not understand what a vendetta is? In which case Google can probably enlighten you

Finally - Overall yes, we seem to be in a worse place now than when Morris came in - However what proof do you have that this is Morris' fault? You seem to be quite happy to believe rumour and speculation about Morris but deny more solid evidence against Rush - As far as I can tell it's been Rush in the driving seat on footballing matters until this summer with Morris there to provide the petrol money - However if you have proof otherwise I would love to see it - All I see so far is your wild speculation based on rumour

okay, "he then CEO Sam Rush, as he had been pivotal in the recent rise in quality, excitement, league position, media coverage and ambition" is not glorifying anyone, it is stating a fact. He was PIVOTAL. Which bit of that is embellishing or exaggerating, or making up (generally what glorifying means in this context). Sam may or may not have been a naughty boy, but there has so far been no evidence whatsoever other than circumstantial coincidence. (WMG connection). 

AS for Vendetta, I have hardly said anything about Morris, I hardly post. I have waited and considered my thoughts for a long while before posting this.

Morris admitted to us at Breakfast that he makes all the hiring and firing decisions. Sacking McClaren (both times), Sacking Clement, Sacking Pearson, hiring Wassall, hiring, Pearson, hiring Rowett, sacking Rush. 

Mel's own mouth, and Sam's own mouth (as a combination) confirmed that Rush sacked Clough, Rush hired McClaren, Rush approached and recommended hiring Clement, Rush also recommended re-hiring McClaren, although @eddie was the main influence. All other decisions were Mel's, and his media appearances during the aftermath, and his interviews confirm this. Not even sure why you are debating it.