Sam Rush

[RamLad1884]

18 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Not sure how we were going nowhere fast when he took over - we were a sensibly run, stable club that had just had 2 seasons seriously challenging for promotion...

And like I said, this isn't about knowing every little detail of employment law, it's basic, basic stuff that everybody should understand. Mel must have known he was going into a meeting to potentially fire somebody, so why not make sure he did know the correct procedures? Or have someone from HR/legal there to make sure everything was above board. Like you said yourself, if you are dealing with something you don't understand, you get someone in who does. There's just no excuse for screwing this sort of stuff up.

Not as cut and dry here, employment law is a very sticky thing, lots of room for discretion and opposing views. Where a possible civil or criminal wrong has been committed it is often incredibly difficult to rely on employment law. Even an incredibly experienced solicitor would probably struggle on this one. 

There's also an issue of how exactly was Rush employed. I very much doubt in a role like his the real meaty part of his wage was guaranteed. Without seeing into the evidence, I'd make an educated assumption that a large chunk of the earnings he's claiming for were performance based. If so then any award by the court must take into account his wrongdoings (if any) at the club. 

 

[Gypsy Ram]

4 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

In the long run I think Mel will come out of this quite well.

Fair enough he got the order of the sacking procedure wrong from an hr point of view but I can see why it would have been difficult for him to remain calm in a meeting like that when he's discovered huge and I mean huge discrepancies in he way things should be done.

Things needed to be said, it can get heated and Mel had probably blown his top and fired/suspended rush without following protocol.

It's wrong but it's not wrong.

Once he's discovered what was going on he's acted swiftly and strongly. Exactly what you'd want from a leader.

Some of things listed in the mail are shocking and i can see rush having difficult explanations to try to get out of some of those spots.

 

I'll have a little dig on my own behalf here. I got absolutely destroyed in here while Rush was seen as the golden boy.

Hammered from pillar to post, even though I've said all along and I said again I've never been anti Derby, I was only ever saying at is as I said it on Rush.

He struck me as a conman from the moment he did the radio interview pre Brighton

 It was never about anything else than his own self promotion. I hope he now faces whatever consequences, its easy on he way up but it's when you're sliding back down the ladder you find out who your friends are.

Mel did very little wrong other than put ihs cash and trust I'm the wrong hands. 

You and your agenda. Your not even dcfc. I want this club to be successful. And contrary to your beliefs - i think the club is going down a blackhole worse than that of the days of Nigel.

[Dimmu]

Meanwhile in DET:

Derby County owner and chairman Mel Morris is excited by the challenge of the promotion run-in.

(okay, it's not straight from DET, can't simply go there as the site is so horrible. This is from Sky Sports' Paper talk)

[1967Ram]

2 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

Good grief, I do believe we are in full agreement about something 

It’s a sign I tell you, 3 points in the bag tomorrow night. 

Yes, but who for?

[Pearl Ram]

2 minutes ago, 1967Ram said:

Yes, but who for?

Well, I wouldn’t be giving the thumbs up if it was going to be Sunderland me owd, I really believe this particular fixture couldn’t have come at a better time. 

[1967Ram]

3 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Well, I wouldn’t be giving the thumbs up if it was going to be Sunderland me owd, I really believe this particular fixture couldn’t have come at a better time. 

Hopefully you're right Pearl Ram. I'll be watching it down here in Dorset with a mackem mate of mine. COYR

[curb]

5 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

I don't think it's remotely harsh at all.  This isn't some weird, arcane corner of HR rules - disciplinary procedures are one of the most basic things that absolutely everyone who's ever had a job of any sort in this country (let alone owned a company that employees hundreds) should understand. There's just no excuse at all for it.  If Morris was convinced that Rush had been doing something wrong, then a proper investigation, and the proper procedures being followed would have made any court case that much stronger.  Firing someone on the spot (if that's what has happened), just makes it look like a kangaroo court.

And it's not that I don't like Mel, it's more that I really didn't want a fan owning the club.  Whilst I'm sure there are very good fan-owners, there's just too much temptation to think and react like a fan, not a rational business owner.  Does anyone actually think that the decision-making has been good since Mel has been here? 

You'd prefer an incompetent Arab, or a drug smuggling Greek gangster?

[ramblur]

Just been refreshing my memory over the new FFP arrangements, and as I thought, the 14/15 threshold was £6m, which we met, and 15/16 was £13m (as a stand alone, to get clubs used to the average allowed under the 3 year cycle,which commenced in 16/17). We were £4m below in 15/16, but an interesting point occurs to me. Our amortization charge was £3.37m, but this was only so low because of our new RV arrangements. The total all in recruitment cost came in just under £30m, and under the old arrangements this would have led to a £7.5m charge if all had been 4 year contracts, and if all had been bought early doors ( neither of which was the case). I reckon that if you matched off the few half year ones with the earlier cases below 4 years (shackell springs to mind - Bent and Baird didn't cost fees, other than agents, and I've a feeling I may have missed off a 3 year character somewhere). Anyway, it seems to me that the old arrangement would have pushed us very close to, if not over, the £13m in a year when there was no 3 year cycle to fall back on.

My question is did we decide on allocating RV's at the outset, or was it a mechanism devised later to get us out of potential FFP strife? I'd love to know whose brainwave the RVs were.

I said some time ago that it was my opinion that the CEO should have made Mel aware of the possible FFP implications of the big spree,going forwards. If he did, and Mel accepted it, then Mel should live with the consequences. If not, I think it's a very different story, as I doubt Mel's an accountant.

On the other hand, if Mel's allegations were true, then we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway, as we would have been well within FFP ,with the 'bogus' spend removed, irrespective of RVs.

As an aside, I've just read that promotion bonuses are exempt from the calculation ( thought I'd read that before), which makes the Leicester case a bit baffling.

[Gypsy Ram]

19 minutes ago, curb said:

You'd prefer an incompetent Arab, or a drug smuggling Greek gangster?

I'm both. Sorry, could you rephrase that.

 

ارد ينتعك

[Derby blood]

6 hours ago, Pearl Ram said:

Good grief, I do believe we are in full agreement about something 

It’s a sign I tell you, 3 points in the bag tomorrow night. 

The 3 points are the most important thing for any DCFC, and getting rid of fools like Rush is another positive thing for Derby, let's hope we do not have to come across any more. toads like Rush.

[Mafiabob]

5 hours ago, curb said:

You'd prefer an incompetent Arab, or a drug smuggling Greek gangster?

I’d prefer someone who is competent, irrespective of where they are from..... 

[Ewe Ram]

11 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

Not sure how we were going nowhere fast when he took over - we were a sensibly run, stable club that had just had 2 seasons seriously challenging for promotion...

And like I said, this isn't about knowing every little detail of employment law, it's basic, basic stuff that everybody should understand. Mel must have known he was going into a meeting to potentially fire somebody, so why not make sure he did know the correct procedures? Or have someone from HR/legal there to make sure everything was above board. Like you said yourself, if you are dealing with something you don't understand, you get someone in who does. There's just no excuse for screwing this sort of stuff up.

Well, if I was worth £700m (or whatever it is) I wouldn’t let a payout at a tribunal that is capped at relative small change to me stop me from doing the deed. I’d give him the hairdryer treatment, kick his ass out the door, stick my middle finger up at him and say ‘sue that you piece of crap’ and not care what it cost. 

 

[Chester40]

19 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

I still feel as though the picture is not quite complete - that there is more information needed to complete the paper trail.

It was stated for example that WMG was Sam rushs former employer. The dealings with them look highly suspicious - but I can't yet see how Sam rush personally benefitted. 

Maybe some forensic examination of WMG accounts needed to see if any irregular payments out - and who to.

Could there be 'finders fees' for clients?...Incentivisation or percentages taken out of increases in income?

[TigerTedd]

38 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

Well, if I was worth £700m (or whatever it is) I wouldn’t let a payout at a tribunal that is capped at relative small change to me stop me from doing the deed. I’d give him the hairdryer treatment, kick his ass out the door, stick my middle finger up at him and say ‘sue that you piece of crap’ and not care what it cost. 

 

My thoughts exactly. **** due process. It’ll cost me £80k but it’s small change for me, and it’s worth it for the satisfaction of kicking him straight out. I’d do all sorts of crazy **** if I was worth £700m. 

[Mafiabob]

1 minute ago, TigerTedd said:

My thoughts exactly. **** due process. It’ll cost me £80k but it’s small change for me, and it’s worth it for the satisfaction of kicking him straight out. I’d do all sorts of crazy **** if I was worth £700m. 

So in essence, if I’m worth a ton of money, I can do as I please..... irrespective of any consequences? 

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

So in essence, if I’m worth a ton of money, I can do as I please..... irrespective of any consequences? 

Sadly in many cases this seems to be true. Just take the Messi tax evasion case for example, because he can afford to pay it all back, probably with interest etc he gets a slap on the wrist, if some builder defrauded the spanish taxman to the tune of 10000 euros but couldnt pay it back in a timely manner his punishment would no doubt be more severe.

 

[Pearl Ram]

Quite, and it’s naive to think otherwise. Money talks and all that.

[Van der MoodHoover]

52 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Could there be 'finders fees' for clients?...Incentivisation or percentages taken out of increases in income?

Easily.  Lots of possibilities - payments from wmg to sam rush,  is Sam still a shareholder in wmg thereby benefiting from increased profits?  Could be all sorts of shenanigans. But all I've read about so far is cash leaving dcfc and not where it has all ended up.

But we know some of it went to the inces 

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

I still feel as though the picture is not quite complete - that there is more information needed to complete the paper trail.

It was stated for example that WMG was Sam rushs former employer. The dealings with them look highly suspicious - but I can't yet see how Sam rush personally benefitted. 

Maybe some forensic examination of WMG accounts needed to see if any irregular payments out - and who to.

We need the court for that @HantsRam, more to come out, one thing for sure is that nothing has been alleged criminally so this will be on the balance of probabilities rather than the higher level of beyond reasonable doubt.  If what Rush is alleged to have done seems suspicious and something that the average man on the street would not have done and that man would see it as being wrong then Rush might have a problem. 

I just wished we stopped washing our dirty stuff in public in fact I had hoped we had got rid of the dirty stuff

[Ewe Ram]

52 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

So in essence, if I’m worth a ton of money, I can do as I please..... irrespective of any consequences? 

There is an argument to say that if you’ve earned your money you can spend it how you wish