Sam Rush

[europia]

I hope it all soon gets resolved and put to bed, without further embarrassment to the club. 

[Philmycock]

On 30/03/2018 at 20:11, Angry Ram said:

No problem with that, garden leave and follow the process.. 

You would think Mel would have qualified professional staff or hired advisors with workplace law knowledge that would have advised this, or are they all brown noses and yes men?

Maybe he has no experience of large company HR situations, I dunno, but he seems to have been very badly advised, unless he just doesn’t give a toss cuz he’s minted, which is worrying.

[ramblur]

I don't want to say very much about 'Fiduciarygate', but what I would say is that if Mel's right about this £7m+, then stripping that amount from the accounts would give a vastly improved landscape. Some of it, such as wages, would immediately affect (past) P/L figures, whilst inflated transfer fees would increase instalments payable, as well as affecting amortization / profit or loss on future sales.

However, we all just have to wait and see what the court decides.

[Orphanram]

9 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

A certain blonde bombshell..... and a lad whose mam who offers scouting services.....

What has Mikel Beck got to do with any of this?

[Mick Harford]

My prediction is that this will be settled out of court,  as personally I cant see an agency wanting a Court of Law albeit civil stating that it or it's agents had acted 'in a naughty manner' thus casting doubt on other contracts that agency and it's agents had negotiated throughout the footballing world. Especially if someone has turned whistle-blower.

I think our owner has been taken for a ride by people in positions of trust, and is often unfairly criticised as a result. 

[RamNut]

To be settled out of court, both sides would have to drop their claims. 

how can sam rush pay back £7m?

even £1m would probably bankrupt him what with costs.

[Boycie]

6 hours ago, RamNut said:

To be settled out of court, both sides would have to drop their claims. 

how can sam rush pay back £7m?

even £1m would probably bankrupt him what with costs.

Give up his shareholding? 

[RamNut]

At the moment i think sam will win, simply because i doubt whether Derbys argument that the we didn't know what was in the contracts - or that the deals weren't as good as they should have been - will stand up. 

[therealhantsram]

8 hours ago, RamNut said:

To be settled out of court, both sides would have to drop their claims. 

how can sam rush pay back £7m?

even £1m would probably bankrupt him what with costs.

That's precisely the game of chicken that is being played. Sam could go to court and win 1M or could lose and go bankrupt.  Even if he thinks he has a watertight case, there is always a small risk.  

[ramblur]

32 minutes ago, RamNut said:

At the moment i think sam will win, simply because i doubt whether Derbys argument that the we didn't know what was in the contracts - or that the deals weren't as good as they should have been - will stand up. 

I'd reply to that, but I want to stay firmly out of the nitty gritty and await the outcome, however hard the temptation ( and believe me it's very hard).

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

Is it true that Sam has become a Fireman somewhere in Wales since leaving Derby?

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, ramblur said:

I'd reply to that, but I want to stay firmly out of the nitty gritty and await the outcome, however hard the temptation ( and believe me it's very hard).

I looked at a couple of examples of case law, and they seemed to rely on personal gain, very deliberate collusion, and secret deals. 

Perhaps it is borderline, but because the outgoing payments would have required the co-operation of others within the club then the club might be deemed to have had appropriate knowledge. Even the Ince Scouting Agreement seems to exist as a written contract. Because the deals weren't great doesn't necessarily mean that they were corrupt. Payments to third parties might become an issue afterwards. Evidence to support the case that the deals were concealed will presumably be highly relevant.

i hope that there is secret no out of court settlement, because it needs to all come out. Doing the dirty washing in public is sometimes necessary.

 

[ramblur]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

I looked at a couple of examples of case law, and they seemed to rely on personal gain, very deliberate collusion, and secret deals. 

Perhaps it is borderline, but because the outgoing payments would have required the co-operation of others within the club then the club might be deemed to have had appropriate knowledge. Even the Ince Scouting Agreement seems to exist as a written contract. Because the deals weren't great doesn't necessarily mean that they were corrupt. Payments to third parties might become an issue afterwards. Evidence to support the case that the deals were concealed will presumably be highly relevant.

i hope that there is secret no out of court settlement, because it needs to all come out. Doing the dirty washing in public is sometimes necessary.

 

I'd agree with your last point, but will keep well out of the rest. (sometimes a little knowledge can be dangerous - not talking about any knowledge that I may have..... because I haven't).

[RadioactiveWaste]

Am I right in thinking this is civil court and decided on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[ramblur]

32 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Am I right in thinking this is civil court and decided on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt?

 

I think you're probably right there, as I believe most civil cases are decided on a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. over 50% . However, I've no idea if that applies in this particular case, which means that I'm displaying a little knowledge that could be dangerous

[MackworthRamIsGod]

I predict there to be more financial controversies revealed over the months once it gets to court.

The appointment of old Arry should have raised a few eyebrows. The sacking and then reinstating of Chris Evans should have rang alarm bells too.

[Woodley Ram]

5 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Am I right in thinking this is civil court and decided on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Correct 

[RamNut]

6 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I predict there to be more financial controversies revealed over the months once it gets to court.

The appointment of old Arry should have raised a few eyebrows. The sacking and then reinstating of Chris Evans should have rang alarm bells too.

At the moment i don't see how these issues are relevant.

Mel took the decision to appoint harry as far as i remember.

Chris evans was schteves choice. He came and went as schteve came and went because PC didn't want him.

[Rab a dab doo]

Innocent until proven guilty or no smoke without fire take your pick.

[superfit]

On 30 March 2018 at 19:21, Angry Ram said:

Well actually he is, the employment tribunal backed Rush that the process was not followed correctly.. So yes unprofessional, how can it be anything else? Regardless of whether the person should be sacked or not, you have to follow the law.  It’s quite simple, even Morris should be able to comprehend the basics. Or are you saying he is above the law because he feels let down and has money.. Weird. 

Not sure but wasn't one of the reasons that Rush won the tribunal hearing was because he wasn't supplied certain information from the club in relation to his sacking? Meaning Derby did not follow procedure and he was summarily dismissed?

Just a thought, could it have prejudiced Derby's civil litigation case against Rush by supplying this information? Therefore, the club made the decision to take the tribunal decision on the chin and keep their powder dry for the main case against Rush? 

I know both sides will have to follow the court disclosure protocol before the case commences so it will come out but I imagine that would take place simultaneously and therefore Rush will not find out what evidence the club has until then?