Sam Rush

[Mafiabob]

Honesty and Integrity.....

[Mihangel]

2 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

He has won his employment tribunal so he will be getting his money from that. The Derby taking him to court is an odd one and my gut tells me it will go nowhere but let’s see

Surely the fact that the judge found correct procedure wasn't followed would not have an impact on a case surrounding his actual activities?

[Inglorius]

This all reflects so poorly on Mel Morris' stewardship of the club whatever way you slice it, so his defence is that he knew nothing about the business transaction's being undertaken by one of his key members of staff?

Not talking about knowing whether the guy in the staff shop was skimming 50 quid a week from the till but one of his senior staff making unauthorised business transactions to the tune of millions.

[duncanjwitham]

11 minutes ago, Inglorius said:

This all reflects so poorly on Mel Morris' stewardship of the club whatever way you slice it, so his defence is that he knew nothing about the business transaction's being undertaken by one of his key members of staff?

Not talking about knowing whether the guy in the staff shop was skimming 50 quid a week from the till but one of his senior staff making unauthorised business transactions to the tune of millions.

If one was in a contrary mood, one could also suggest that Morris hasn't been involving himself in football matters enough, and should have spent more time interfering and micro-managing his highly-paid staff .

[EssendonRam]

2 hours ago, Ramchop said:

Of course he won the industrial tribunal. We dismissed him without him having counsel in the disciplinary meeting. We must have known he would win this, but damages in an industrial tribunal cannot exceed 80k. 

I don't think this has any bearing on the civil court case. The actions in his dismissal were wrong, but the reason must have some weight for us to not have settled out of court

There’s an aspect in the article that’s confusing me in regards the unfair dismissal hearing. At no time is Rush’s suspension pending investigation mentioned. My reading of the quotes from the employment tribunal seem to suggest that he was dismissed prior to his suspension. By way of example, the denial of legal representation; Rush would’ve received notification of the suspension with (at least) preliminary details of the allegations against him. That must’ve been the case for an investigation to follow. His legal team would have responded to some of those allegations even if they were denied permission to attend the final dismissal meeting (which, in itself, seems extraordinary and petty). Some allegations, such as any regarding payments from third parties, would’ve/could’ve been denied. 

Usually, the purpose of the suspension is for the employee to show cause why they shouldn’t be dismissed and that opportunity  covers the employer; I understand that Rush says there was insufficient detail to permit an adequate response.

For a judge to dismiss that so unceremoniously is disconcerting.

It may well be that the club had insufficient evidence at the time Rush was dismissed and believes it subsequently has that evidence. But, in instances involving potential fraud or breach of fiduciary responsibilities, there are protections for employers too. It’s surprising that the club has not played that card, or at least reserved the right to play that card.

Those of you that know me know that I was unfairly dismissed in May 2016 by my then employer, NAB, on entirely false premises (and which had no fiduciary or fraudulent basis) and NAB were similarly embarrassed. Yet NAB still sought (and received, because I gave it to them) protections should they identify any fraudulent activity on my part. To reiterate, that was in a case where the suggestion hadn’t even been made. (They couldn’t and paid accordingly I hasten to add.)

That was under Australian law, although I’ve been struck by the similarities of both the law and the processes evident in this case.

It is disconcerting that the club’s parent entity seems not to have played that card.

 I will add, though, that the reference to potential future liabilities being crystallised is interesting and may impact the FFP equation.

The club would be bound to manage as if those potential liabilities have been crystallised if there’s any reasonable prospect of them being realised.

[Inglorius]

19 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

If one was in a contrary mood, one could also suggest that Morris hasn't been involving himself in football matters enough, and should have spent more time interfering and micro-managing his highly-paid staff .

By the very definition of ecomonies of scale you could never use micro in the same sentence as losing millions.

[Mostyn6]

11 hours ago, Derby blood said:

Never liked the man, talked a lot of ******** most of the time, Nigel Clough was spot on about him, the man knew nothing of football, but knew loads about arse licking the owners of the club, at the time lol.

he certainly knew binning Nigel was the right move!

[Gritstone Ram]

3 hours ago, RamNut said:

My take on it so far....

Derby were planning on getting rid of bent.

bent triggered his renewal and tweeted the laughing emojis

that might have cost us £1.5m

maybe it was a similar situation with baird - there could be another unplanned spend there.

unplanned costs have taken us closer to the edge with regards to FFP

Mel was angry. Probably discovered that the supposedly non-disclosed extension clauses - giving the player the right to extend the contract - exist with other players. 

Also found the over inflated attendance figures, perhaps triggering bonus payments that were not due.maybe they were counting tickets sold or given away but not used. I would be surprised if there wasn't some justification for the higher figures.

more issues are alleged to exist with regards to payments to agents etc.

mel summoned rush to a meeting to explain himself. Gave him no prior warning of the questions. Refused to allow him to be accompanied by a lawyer, and summarily dismissed him on the basis of his answers. Much of that would seem to be contrary to derbys disciplinary procedures and employment law. Therefore SR won the employment tribunal. But the allegations of misconduct have not yet been tested.

By the time that the case was developed it possibly also went back to alleged issues before mel arrived.

SR has counted that by arguing that everything was disclosed under due diligence when mel bought the club. Seems to have a good defence there. That limits the charges to events after mel arrived. SR will argue that he was acting within the normal remit of a CEO. Mel will argue that SR was acting beyond his remit - on a frolic of his own. SR will argue that the club via steven pearce knew all the financial details. But clearly mel was not sufficiently informed.

At least he didn't sell Will Hughes for a pittance. That was criminal.

 

Does anyone know the Hughes transfer fee?

It was criminal to sell Hughes for any fee. 

The theory on the attendance is interesting I know they counted tickets sold including ST even if people didn’t attend.

[Coneheadjohn]

4 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Yeah but it did give us a good song.. Money well spent IMO.

Agreed,perhaps the 6 figure add on was for that exact reason.

 

[Coneheadjohn]

2 hours ago, Gritters said:

Does anyone know the Hughes transfer fee?

It was criminal to sell Hughes for any fee. 

The theory on the attendance is interesting I know they counted tickets sold including ST even if people didn’t attend.

We got £3  everyone else shared £8 million plus add ons.

[Seaside Sam]

11 minutes ago, coneheadjohn said:

We got £3  everyone else shared £8 million plus add ons.

that's  £3 more than we will get for Butterfield then

[Coneheadjohn]

9 minutes ago, Seaside Sam said:

that's  £3 more than we will get for Butterfield then

I reckon it might cost us quite a lot to get out of that one.

[Dale The Ram]

3 hours ago, Gritters said:

Does anyone know the Hughes transfer fee?

It was criminal to sell Hughes for any fee. 

The theory on the attendance is interesting I know they counted tickets sold including ST even if people didn’t attend.

Believe it was £10m same as Hendrick...

It was all down to Hughesys agent being a former Watford player, dont think Derby could have got more money unfortunately.

Same thing happened with Paul Ince demanding his son to be a Prem player, Derby couldnt get any more off that deal.

[therealhantsram]

26 minutes ago, Dale The Ram said:

Believe it was £10m same as Hendrick...

It was all down to Hughesys agent being a former Watford player, dont think Derby could have got more money unfortunately.

Same thing happened with Paul Ince demanding his son to be a Prem player, Derby couldnt get any more off that deal.

That's not the story Tom tells.  He says Rowett told him they needed cash for rebuilding and he had to go as he was one of the few saleable assets.

Hughes on the other hand wanted out.

[ronnieronalde]

4 hours ago, Moist One said:

he certainly knew binning Nigel was the right move!

Always space for a dig at Nigel. Well played.

 

£100million quid to dis assemble one of the best squads in the league and still be in the same division doesn't do your argument any favours though.

 

Some may suggest Mel would have been better off keeping his £100  million and continue to have the academy funding the first team. Based on stats and previous evidence of improvement there would have been a couple of play off pushes in there but at a tiny fraction of the outlay.

*£100 million could be an understated or ever so slightly overstated figure.

As for Sam, well well, who could have seen it coming that he was a bit of a wide boy spiv. 

Not me, no siree.

[therealhantsram]

4 hours ago, Gritters said:

Does anyone know the Hughes transfer fee?

It was criminal to sell Hughes for any fee. 

See the recent comments in the finance thread.  Latest accounts suggest we needed to shift out Hughes before July 1 in order to meet FFP for 16/17.  This is a key reason fee was so low.  If we could have hung on to Aug/Sep then fee would no doubt be much higher.

[Dale The Ram]

10 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

That's not the story Tom tells.  He says Rowett told him they needed cash for rebuilding and he had to go as he was one of the few saleable assets.

Hughes on the other hand wanted out.

All I remember was Paul Ince saying Tom deserved to be a prem player.

Could well have said that after Rowett told him he was going to be sold, if that is the case then fair play

[EnigmaRam]

12 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

See the recent comments in the finance thread.  Latest accounts suggest we needed to shift out Hughes before July 1 in order to meet FFP for 16/17.  This is a key reason fee was so low.  If we could have hung on to Aug/Sep then fee would no doubt be much higher.

That's nonsense. FFP is calculated over 3 years to the sum of £39mil max.

[Sparkle]

Just read this, wow ————- and sad 

we knew we were getting fleeced on those transfers but that’s beyond ridiculous 

[Seaside Sam]

2 hours ago, coneheadjohn said:

I reckon it might cost us quite a lot to get out of that one.

I think we should trade him in for a second hand Yugo