Sam Rush

[SilentRam]

1 hour 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.

If this is true, then failing to sell Martin to Fulham last season and sending him out on a season long loan (and re-signing him while he was away on that loan) looks even more ridiculous. At least back then we could have got 3 or 4 million for Martin. Another player we will get little to nothing back on money wise. 

[Seaside Sam]

1 hour 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.

I think that's probably there version more than the actual,these players have a very high opinion of themselves 

[Seaside Sam]

2 minutes ago, SilentRam said:

If this is true, then failing to sell Martin to Fulham last season and sending him out on a season long loan (and re-signing him while he was away on that loan) looks even more ridiculous. At least back then we could have got 3 or 4 million for Martin. Another player we will get little to nothing back on money wise. 

except nobody actually offered any hard cash for him

[MikeS]

We wait to see what comes out of the bag in the future,  but so far, it is fair to say that the club's legal advisors appear to have not exactly covered themselves in any glory....or someone is allowing personal feelings to interfere in finding the best way forward.

[Mostyn6]

2 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

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.

hang on Ronnie, read what I responded to. Simply, Nigel had a dig at Sam cos Sam sacked Nigel. I think Nigel Clough being removed as manager was a brave but much needed move. The ins and outs of it leave a bitter taste, such as the timing etc, But the immediate reaction within the club justified the move. The rest of your comment, I'm not going to disagree with, or even discuss as it is not part of what I am discussing.

[Inglorius]

2 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

£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. 

Your post reminds me of the quote from the band New Order when they ran the Hacienda Club in Manchester, they said over the long term it would have been cheaper to give everyone who turned up at the club £5 to go away rather then incur the running losses they incurred over the years the club was open. 

Mel Morris is obviously not a fan of the Madchester scene. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, Seaside Sam said:

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

I'll see your second hand Yugo and raise you a dead lavender I dug up in my garden this afternoon

[cosmic]

8 hours ago, Mafiabob said:

Honesty and Integrity.....

Bring back the Yanks!

[cosmic]

4 minutes ago, cosmic said:

Bring back the Yanks!

Actually, didn’t they bring in Rush? 

[1967Ram]

1 hour ago, SilentRam said:

If this is true, then failing to sell Martin to Fulham last season and sending him out on a season long loan (and re-signing him while he was away on that loan) looks even more ridiculous. At least back then we could have got 3 or 4 million for Martin. Another player we will get little to nothing back on money wise. 

Some may say the ludicrous thing was backing the then current manager (Mac) to re-sign him and then ditching that manager and employing someone who didn't want Martin.

[Woodley Ram]

9 hours ago, ShoreRam said:

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

Different court, different evidence. A tribunal is about process, a civil court is about evidential culpability based on the balance of probabilities 

[ramblur]

3 hours 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 doesn't have to be true. Was the loss quoted the headline loss, or the FFP loss, because there's several millions of a difference between the two? If it were  the headline loss, then the Hughes sale may not have been needed in the period (although, looking at the figures, one of Ince or Hughes might have been needed - then again, if you look at the £39m/ 3 years rule, neither may have been needed, but you wouldn't really want to exceed £13m in any one year).

[Van der MoodHoover]

9 hours ago, EssendonRam said:

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.

Is that the law under which it’s compulsory to sandpaper one side of a cricket ball? (Sorry mate just yanking your chain) 

[LesterRam]

@David  pfffffftttttt what happened to my Sir Mel Morris and Sammy Rush logo, that took me 2 hours to make in Office Paint (still can't open PSD), this is surely bullying 

[Ghost of Clough]

4 hours 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.

FFP requires reports to be shared in March so it wouldn’t have mattered if sold in June or August. Even if we did fall foul of FFP, we would most likely have suffered a transfer embargo and sold Hughes on. 

His value would have (and in my opinion did) increased from his performances during the European Champiosnhip, with more clubs becoming interested in him

[europia]

20 hours ago, Zag zig said:

The Mail making reference to Employment Judge Clark’s comments is not interesting, sounds like the dirty washing is about to be aired.

I’m not pre-judging anything but as a fan, I wonder why the team I support, seems to have such an history of so many off-field drama’s down the years 

Guess we always knew if there was no private settlement, it could drag the club through the courts and media. Mel wanted to set the record straight and settle the matter in public from past comments when Sam went, but I’d much rather we were in the news for on pitch matters.

Whatever anyone thinks of Rush and whatever the end result, this is yet again not a good moment for Derby County.

Absolutely agree. We've had enough of it, more than a fair share: 

The Brian Clough fall out with the board when we were one of the best teams in Europe, then the decline & the high court years, the Maxwell saga, rise and fall of Lionel Pickering, the Three Amigo's, Billy Davies / Paul Jewell humiliation season, GSE & Glick, Mel's managerial hirings & firings, now the Sam Rush fiasco...... there are probably more

Never a dull moment for all the wrong reasons. 

[SuperDerbySuperRams]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5555645/Derbys-1m-scouting-report-recommended-sign-Kylian-Mbappe-Ousmane-Dembele.html

 

 

This club really is something else

[SuperDerbySuperRams]

Just read it fully. Wow. Embarrassing for everyone involved 

 

Throughout Rush's counter claim there are references to Morris's 'hands on' involvement in the club, using the example that in August 2015 'he instructed the then recently appointed manager, Paul Clement (a WMG client), that he was forbidden from appointing Richard Keogh as his captain'.

 

 

!!!

[Comrade 86]

Guys, anyone know whether the option to extend is a common clause in player contracts? Seems an odd one to me, especially where players at the end of their careers are concerned. 

[nottingram]

16 minutes ago, SuperDerbySuperRams said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5555645/Derbys-1m-scouting-report-recommended-sign-Kylian-Mbappe-Ousmane-Dembele.html

 

 

This club really is something else

In fairness they’d have both been great signings