Morris has bought shame on himself tonight

[DRBee]

26 minutes ago, RamNut said:

There seems to be a trend to attack the poster if they happen to disagree with the clubs inebriated, brain dead, morally bankrupt position. If you agree with the feeble lack of leadership, and the deteriorating standard of permissible behaviour, just say why.

Well many fans are commenting when there are a lot of things they don't actually know, just making assumptions -

how the players feel -  assuming they are not sorry for what happened ;   the players contract and what it says about disciplinary action  ; the sanctions the club has taken and will take when the criminal legal proceedings are complete.

Social media encourages a feeding frenzy of often ill-informed speculation and moral outrage. Some say the players involved must suffer  but I suspect many will have their own history of ill-advised drunken exploits, even if not anywhere near as bad as drunken driving like these players. 

I would have hoped that the players would have been suspended until the criminal proceedings were over as many employment contracts do have  conditions about 'bringing the company into disrepute' . There should be consequences for the players but I don't want them to suffer. The best thing the club can do is to bring about   a  permanent change in the drinking culture of the whole club.

[AndyinLiverpool]

11 hours ago, G-Ram said:

Not really Morris' fault they played. In the press conference after the incident didnt cocu say it was his decision if they play? 

Mel cant win. Backs the manager lets them play as its ultimately the managers decision & gets accused of disgracing himself. If he tells cocu he cant play them then he is interfering with team selections

The whole situation is a mess. I was well annoyed last week but i think we all need to quietly move on and forget about it. Its been done & nobody can change it. Pointless keep going on about it 

It is absolutely not 'ultimately the manager's decision' whether they play or not. Company policy (bringing the company into disrepute, for example) and high level meetings of the relevant bosses will surely have taken place to decide their availability.

I can think of no organisation I have ever worked in where I would be allowed anywhere near the public face of the organisation under such circumstances.

[Ellafella]

11 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

To my mind,the two of them need to be subject to disciplinary measures by the club and criminal charges by the police resulting in a courts judgements on the incident.

In the meantime they shouldn't be sitting on their arses at home,lounging about,they have a job of work to do for the club and they can bloody well pitch in and give their all for the club together with whatever punishment is eventually deemed appropriate 

It was the main topic of conversation last night pre-match at Oakwell. There seemed to be an overwhelming consensus that they shouldn’t be in the team and should be on “boot cleaning” duties for the foreseeable future. It does look like we’ve quickly gone through the motions as a Club of saying “mea culpa”, wearing the hair shirt for half a day then tossing it away in a quest for points.

It doesn’t reflect well on our role as community leaders. A better approach would have been to make them train on their own for at least a few days, boot cleaning and no first team football for the foreseeable future. 

Instead we are divided again over the issue and seemingly back where we were last week. 

[Jourdan]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not meaning to single out your post here but it's the first one I've read this morning, I guess there will be plenty more of the same ilk.

Am I correct in assuming you've never broke the law at all?

Not going to trivialise drink driving, it's a serious offence, but the 'they could have killed someone' accusation is just the same for speeding. Would you want anyone convicted of speeding suspended?

I will admit that I was surprised that either of them played but if their employer deems it in theirs, and the clubs best interests, who are we to argue? We dont pay their wages. We are merely paying customers and, if unhappy, have the choice not to go.

All this talk of Mel Morris bringing shame upon himself and the club is absolute nonsense.

If you want to talk about shaming the club, take a look at the behaviour of a section of our fans. The away day experience is absolutely awful these days.

 

Yes, a football club is a business and we are paying customers. But a football club is also much more than that. It is at the heart of a city, it’s part of people’s identities, and has a unique relationship with its community and a sense of social responsibility far beyond that of any  other business. 

I can find another florist, I can find another barber shop, it’s not quite the same with a football club. 

No one is expecting the club to be the arbiter of all that is right and good in the world and set impossible standards to live by. But I think this was a very straightforward decision that the people in charge got wrong.

Have I made mistakes? Yes. Have I done things that people would disapprove of? Yes. Have I broken the law? Almost definitely and probably without even realising. It’s so easily done. Thinking out loud is a crime somewhere. But that’s besides the point. 

I don’t think it is unfair to suggest that the club should remind players of the scale of their actions, remind them of their responsibilities and remind them that they are not untouchable and not above the rules.

The consequences of their actions are potentially devastating and life changing. If you are on the receiving end, you might not live to see another day, never mind go back to doing what you know and love a week later. Some recognition of that wouldn’t go amiss.

After all, if Harry selling club branded lollipops in the megastore got smashed on a Tuesday night, drove his Renault into a lamp post and injured his colleague Will in the process, would he be back on the shop floor a week later? Would the club stand by Harry? Or would they be treated differently?

[AdamRam]

Still think there is a lot of hypocrisy in this thread, MM finds a loophole in FFP rules in order to continue to improve the team and fans think it’s great. MM brings in WR in a deal that has to be funded by a gambling company, and we all give him a big pat on the back, signing we sign who we want.....

Yet bringing back two players charged with DD is met with uproar, it’s immoral, could have ruined people’s live etc...yes it could, but so can gambling. Come on which one it 

At least people who defend him no matter what he does are consistent.

[Red_Dawn]

Agree with the OP. What lesson does this give the younger generation aspiring to be sportsmen?

Oh don't worry about endangering the publics life, you'll miss one game and then straight back into the first team. 

Absolutely no punishment whatsoever, they probably enjoyed getting abit of a rest if anything. 

I'd be throughly ashamed if Forest pulled this. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

7 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Still think there is a lot of hypocrisy in this thread, MM finds a loophole in FFP rules in order to continue to improve the team and fans think it’s great. MM brings in WR in a deal that has to be funded by a gambling company, and we all give him a big pat on the back, signing we sign who we want.....

Yet bringing back two players charged with DD is met with uproar, it’s immoral, could have ruined people’s live etc...yes it could, but so can gambling. Come on which one it 

At least people who defend him no matter what he does are consistent.

That sort of consistency is idiotic though, isn’t it? It shows an inability to assess and form an opinion on individual situations, instead blindly accepting everything from the same source in the same way. 

I’ll take consistently doing the former, thanks. 

[AdamRam]

2 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

That sort of consistency is idiotic though, isn’t it? It shows an inability to assess and form an opinion on individual situations, instead blindly accepting everything from the same source in the same way. 

I’ll take consistently doing the former, thanks. 

Or you can pick and choose when your offended ? 

Not saying you personally, however how many are disappointed with the decision because of the players involved instead of their actions. 

And I’d agree that the former is the better way to go.

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 minute ago, AdamRam said:

Or you can pick and choose when your offended ? 

Not saying you personally, however how many are disappointed with the decision because of the players involved instead of their actions. 

And I’d agree that the former is the better way to go.

 

I'm not sure I would use the word 'offended' here. I don't think anyone is offended. Plenty of people are disappointed or angry or confused but not offended.

I don't see anything wrong with criticising someone you generally agree with. Sometimes good people do things you don't like and bad people do things that you do like. There's nothing hypocritical about saying so when such things occur.

[AdamRam]

2 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I'm not sure I would use the word 'offended' here. I don't think anyone is offended. Plenty of people are disappointed or angry or confused but not offended.

I don't see anything wrong with criticising someone you generally agree with. Sometimes good people do things you don't like and bad people do things that you do like. There's nothing hypocritical about saying so when such things occur.

Does that not bring it back to my original point though, we are quite happy to have the club promoting gambling to improve the clubs on field performance, yet this decision is met with uproar.

The argument appears to be that we are sending out the wrong message by playing these players, they are role models, they could have killed someone etc..none of which was displayed when we announced bringing in a player whose wages if we read is correct, are being paid for by a betting company. 

I actually don’t have a problem with either call, and that’s coming from someone who thinks Mel runs the club like a fan and has made many mistakes. 

Maybe your right, maybe they are completely different.

[Carnero]

35 minutes ago, Red_Dawn said:

Absolutely no punishment whatsoever, they probably enjoyed getting a bit of a rest if anything. 

... but it would be a bigger punishment to continue to pay them to put their feet up resting?

Righto.

[G STAR RAM]

43 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

Yes, a football club is a business and we are paying customers. But a football club is also much more than that. It is at the heart of a city, it’s part of people’s identities, and has a unique relationship with its community and a sense of social responsibility far beyond that of any  other business. 

Agree it is part of peoples identity, disagree that they have any more social responsibility.

I can find another florist, I can find another barber shop, it’s not quite the same with a football club. 

Incorrect, there are numerous football clubs in the area, like any other business its brand loyalty. 

No one is expecting the club to be the arbiter of all that is right and good in the world and set impossible standards to live by. But I think this was a very straightforward decision that the people in charge got wrong.

I agree they should not be playing yet but only because I think their heads must be all over the place. Otherwise innocent until proven guilty.

Have I made mistakes? Yes. Have I done things that people would disapprove of? Yes. Have I broken the law? Almost definitely and probably without even realising. It’s so easily done. Thinking out loud is a crime somewhere. But that’s besides the point. 

No, it's not besides the point. If you thin the players should not be involved until they have proved they have learned their lesson then you should be held to the same standard.

I don’t think it is unfair to suggest that the club should remind players of the scale of their actions, remind them of their responsibilities and remind them that they are not untouchable and not above the rules.

Agreed. The investigation is ongoing.

The consequences of their actions are potentially devastating and life changing. If you are on the receiving end, you might not live to see another day, never mind go back to doing what you know and love a week later. Some recognition of that wouldn’t go amiss.

Same goes for speeding motorists.

Cant find official statistics but most articles seem to point to more deaths caused by speeding than drink driving. 

Do you think anyone convicted of speeding should be suspended until they demonstrate they have learned their lesson?

After all, if Harry selling club branded lollipops in the megastore got smashed on a Tuesday night, drove his Renault into a lamp post and injured his colleague Will in the process, would he be back on the shop floor a week later? Would the club stand by Harry? Or would they be treated differently?

Employment law will be the same for everyone across the company. I imagine, if anything, players will have more stringent clauses in their contracts.

 

[Sexydadbod]

6 minutes ago, Carnero said:

... but it would be a bigger punishment to continue to pay them to put their feet up resting?

Righto.

It doesn’t mean they had to do one or the other. They both (presumably), love playing football so that in itself isn’t a punishment as nothing has changed to before. For me they should have been suspended without pay until the court date, and in the mean time made to do work in the community for charities, alcohol charities more specifically. 

[Red_Dawn]

14 minutes ago, Carnero said:

... but it would be a bigger punishment to continue to pay them to put their feet up resting?

Righto.

As others have commented, make them scrubs boots, clean the toilets. Play with the U23s. Fine them massively. Stick them on the transfer list?

Doing NOTHING emphasises only one thing. Derby County they aren't bothered about their players drink driving. Even if it endangers the public, and results in one of the clubs prized assets (The captain!) likely being ruled out for the entire season and possibly never able to play again. 

Sorry, but as several others have commented, these are public figures,  role models. Totally wrong choice to play them straight away. 

[cheron85]

6 minutes ago, Sexydadbod said:

It doesn’t mean they had to do one or the other. They both (presumably), love playing football so that in itself isn’t a punishment as nothing has changed to before. For me they should have been suspended without pay until the court date, and in the mean time made to do work in the community for charities, alcohol charities more specifically. 

I'd have them personally apologise to every single fan who wants one - In person - And have them sit through the reasons why those people hate drink drivers and hear the stories of those fans who have been affected by it - I'd have them on community service for the length of the rest of their time with Derby (however long that is) - I'd have them on extra training - And get them to spend at least an hour a day watching videos and testimonial from people affected by drink driving 

But if the gaffer thinks he wants them out re-proving themselves on the pitch and wants to make purely football reasons the heart of his team selection I'm going to (somewhat grudgingly) accept that and try to understand why he's making that decision

26 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

Does that not bring it back to my original point though, we are quite happy to have the club promoting gambling to improve the clubs on field performance, yet this decision is met with uproar.

Individual moralities - Some people are more passionate about one thing over another - Also there's an overwhelming perception that gambling problems mostly affect those who are afflicted with them - Drink drivers are causing more danger to those around them / outside who are total random innocents in the most

However, I kind of think we should get away from the morality issue here - No football club is a beacon of morality because any company which relies on revenue and success to drive revenue can be as moral as we'd like them to be - This has been a very serious and damaging thing to specific people who have been affected by the issues and I'm trying to emphasise how much I appreciate that - But the moral standing of our club (or any other) over the years hasn't exactly been impeccable - Our most successful manager was a massive boozer and encouraged a drinking culture in the club - We were owned and achieved relative success when owned by a crook who stole from the people who worked for him partly to fund our team - We've had managers and players who have persistently cheated on their wives and had families broken apart because of it - We've had at least one manager who's financial dealings are somewhat suspect and as you mention there are enough question marks over our current sponsors and transfer behaviours 

I think the answer is respect people's reasons for feeling betrayed - Try to show a bit of understanding as to why others don't as much - Treat everyone as an individual like they are - Be sad that some of our supporter base feel they can no longer support the club - And welcome them back with open arms if they choose to return

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, Red_Dawn said:

As others have commented, make them scrubs boots, clean the toilets. Play with the U23s. Fine them massively. Stick them on the transfer list?

Doing NOTHING emphasises only one thing. Derby County they aren't bothered about their players drink driving. Even if it endangers the public, and results in one of the clubs prized assets (The captain!) likely being ruled out for the entire season and possibly never able to play again. 

Sorry, but as several others have commented, these are public figures,  role models. Totally wrong choice to play them straight away. 

Assume you campaigned for Brian Clough to be sacked when he was permanently pissed for about 20 years, attacking fans on the pitch and using racist language to a girl at my school when on a public visit?

[Red_Dawn]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Assume you campaigned for Brian Clough to be sacked when he was permanently pissed for about 20 years, attacking fans on the pitch and using racist language to a girl at my school when on a public visit?

I'm 31 years old mate. As many of you have frequently commented, Cloughie's success with us was decades ago. I doubt I was of an age to get offended or 'campaign' about anything. 

I get pissed often, doesn't mean I'm going to jump behind the wheel and endanger other peoples lives. The fans on the pitch incident was overblown, and I have no knowledge of him ever using racist language. 

Nice straw man though. We're talking about Derby players in 2019, not a Derby manager from 40 years ago. 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Red_Dawn said:

I'm 31 years old mate. As many of you have frequently commented, Cloughie's success with us was decades ago. I doubt I was of an age to get offended or 'campaign' about anything. 

I get pissed often, doesn't mean I'm going to jump behind the wheel and endanger other peoples lives. The fans on the pitch incident was overblown, and I have no knowledge of him ever using racist language. 

Nice straw man though. We're talking about Derby players in 2019, not a Derby manager from 40 years ago. 

Just not sure why you're trying to take the moral high ground.

Do you ever speed in your car? If so, isnt that breaking the law and endangering peoples lives?

If you're bothered about criminality I would have thought you would start with your club owner before worrying about other teams players?

Dont get me wrong, I'm disgusted with what the players have done. But if my club wants to help rehabilitate them who am I to argue?

Let he without sin and all that...

[cheron85]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Just not sure why you're trying to take the moral high ground.

Do you ever speed in your car? If so, isnt that breaking the law and endangering peoples lives?

If you're bothered about criminality I would have thought you would start with your club owner before worrying about other teams players?

Dont get me wrong, I'm disgusted with what the players have done. But if my club wants to help rehabilitate them who am I to argue?

Let he without sin and all that...

He's a WUM coming here to gloat - Classic "My team would never act like this" with the caveat that he's only talking about the current team and then the caveat that he's only talking about this one specific issue - And any other criminal activity anyone involved now or previously was or is involved in is besides the point because... 

Just don't engage

[cannable]

I wonder where the furore was before Hendrick’s court case