Mel's "Mistakes"

[AGR]

20 hours ago, Big Bad Bob said:

I'm curious. Plenty of people on here say Mel has made mistakes. Perhaps these can be determined as mistakes with hindsight. But my curiosity is what are the mistakes people believe Mel made without hindsight? I.e. what would people class as a mistake as soon as Mel made a decision without seeing the results later on? 

Biggest mistake was replacing Clement with Wassall.

We were 4th or 5th in the league with a decent championship squad at the time; Carson, Keogh, Shackell, Bryson, Thorne, Hendrick, Hughes (coming back from injury) Ince, Russell, Martin, Weimann.

An experienced manager might have dragged us over the finish line. Even if we'd come back down a year in the prem would've helped balance the books with the wages we were paying at the time.

Under Wassall we kept up our good home form but there were some dreadful away games; Wolves, QPR and Cardiff spring to mind.

 

Second biggest mistake was not letting Mac2 rebuild properly with Martin due to come back in the summer.

[cheron85]

59 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Hi C85

but aren't your Rush comment confirmation bias and have been debunked by by the employment tribunal?  The article pout up by @iRamwas a bit of an eye opener!

Oh there's a very good chance I'm suffering from confirmation bias too ? But I'm at least open to the idea that it could be anything - Maybe Morris is crazy? It just doesn't seem that way from the actions he's taken since Rush left

Have you ever been unfortunate enough to have to deal with a 'poor' employee? It's REALLY difficult to showcase that someone should be fired for incompetence, whether justified or not, so it's hardly shocking what came back

I read what @iRam posted and it all makes sense - But doesn't clarify anything (for me)

Rush says all financial decisions were signed off by the finance director - Well yes, of course they were but if the CEO tells the FD to do something then (generally) they do it

It always struck me that Morris handed almost exclusive control over to Rush - Fully trusted him to run things in the right way - So when Rush brought something along and said "sign this please Mel" he would have signed it - That's trust

And that's why I think the biggest mistake Morris has made is trusting Rush

What I don't know (and never will) is whether Rush was just incompetent, hampered by other things or maliciously messing with us to make money - We did a lot of deals with his former colleagues and with businesses which will have made him money - I'm not sure whether he was merely trying a 'Wolves' or whether he was helping his old mates out - And I guess we'll never know

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Oh there's a very good chance I'm suffering from confirmation bias too ? But I'm at least open to the idea that it could be anything - Maybe Morris is crazy? It just doesn't seem that way from the actions he's taken since Rush left

Have you ever been unfortunate enough to have to deal with a 'poor' employee? It's REALLY difficult to showcase that someone should be fired for incompetence, whether justified or not, so it's hardly shocking what came back

I read what @iRam posted and it all makes sense - But doesn't clarify anything (for me)

Rush says all financial decisions were signed off by the finance director - Well yes, of course they were but if the CEO tells the FD to do something then (generally) they do it

It always struck me that Morris handed almost exclusive control over to Rush - Fully trusted him to run things in the right way - So when Rush brought something along and said "sign this please Mel" he would have signed it - That's trust

And that's why I think the biggest mistake Morris has made is trusting Rush

What I don't know (and never will) is whether Rush was just incompetent, hampered by other things or maliciously messing with us to make money - We did a lot of deals with his former colleagues and with businesses which will have made him money - I'm not sure whether he was merely trying a 'Wolves' or whether he was helping his old mates out - And I guess we'll never know

?

difficult particularly when the 'poor' employee is senior management.  I also find tribunals slanted in favour of the employee.  Not sure I can believe that anybody involved can be seen as having any sense of perspective.  Not the only club to have this experience we've just been a bit more expansive than most

[Shaftesbury Street]

Putting his personal wealth into a club with an over entitled fan base?

 

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, Shaftesbury Street said:

Putting his personal wealth into a club with an over entitled fan base?

 

Hi SS

do you really think we are different to any other club unrealistic expectations wise.  I guess if you look at the wendies site there will be talk of Rafa and millions invested in creative ways.  Just BS most of the time.  I suspect we have a long and difficult climb out of this predicament and we will lose a fair few who expect instant results

[sage]

2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

I doubt Mel will have anything to say as he agreed a confidential settlement under NDA procedures. Not however before Rush won his unfair dismissal claim. For your memory:

Rush issued a statement via his representatives. It said: 'Sam Rush was unfairly dismissed, when he was fired by Derby County, an Employment Tribunal Judge has ruled. 

'Employment Judge Clark concluded after an Employment Tribunal hearing in February that Derby County's argument regarding a fair dismissal had "no reasonable prospects of success". 

'The Judge also found that the Club's reasons for refusing to hold a disciplinary meeting with Mr Rush did not hold up'….'the respondent's contention as to why it did not follow its own procedure as it had stated it would, does not have credible force.' 

'Mr Clark added: "On the undisputed chronology of this case...I have concluded that the contention that the dismissal was procedurally fair has no reasonable prospects of success. 'Consequently, I strike out the respondent's response insofar as it asserts a liability defence to the claim of unfair dismissal.

'"In relation to the procedure adopted when Mr Rush was dismissed the Judge noted that a request that the claimant be legally represented at the disciplinary meeting was refused. 

'"Second, that Mr Rush wrote noting the lack of any details of what he was supposed to have done wrong in Mr Rush's view hindered any sensible preparation amounting to an ambush.

'"Further, that there was no credible explanation for why the Club acted in the way they did."'

'Paul Daniels from Keystone Law representing Mr Rush said: "We are very pleased but not at all surprised that Mr Rush has won his claim for unfair dismissal. We have always made clear that Mr Rush did absolutely nothing wrong at the Club, so to be treated in the way he was, was extremely disappointing to say the least.

'"Mr Rush looks forward to telling the whole story of his treatment by the Club and to the High Court ruling on his claims as soon as possible. 

'"The counter-allegations against Mr Rush are entirely without foundation. We would note that many of the payments alleged to be somehow unauthorised had been subject to very detailed due diligence by Mr Morris' Solicitors when he bought the Club as well as professionally audited by independent auditors, with no concerns being raised at any stage. 

'"Secondly, Mr Rush had no power to sign off any payments at the Club, with all payments being signed and authorised by the Finance Director. Needless to say, Mr Rush strongly denies any wrongdoing in any shape or form and is very disappointed and saddened that the Club have chosen to pursue these entirely unfounded allegations after he wrote launching his substantial legal claim for damages for breach of contract, unfair dismissal and regarding his 5% shareholding in the Club. 

'"Finally, we have noted the allegations made in the Accounts just published by the Club and our client categorically confirms that there is no substance whatsoever in those allegations."'

There are 2 sources quoted in that article.

One is an impartial judge saying Derby didn't follow employment rules,

The second is Rush's lawyer saying he did nothing wrong.

Two separate sources, two different stories.     

[i-Ram]

12 minutes ago, sage said:

There are 2 sources quoted in that article.

One is an impartial judge saying Derby didn't follow employment rules,

The second is Rush's lawyer saying he did nothing wrong.

Two separate sources, two different stories.     

That is of course correct my learned friend; I did not present in any way to suggest otherwise. If you like two different stories, here’s another:

May 2017 Morris said: ‘Obviously, in a situation like this, Sam has every right to defend his position.

‘I anticipate this will end up in the courts and we are relishing that opportunity.

‘I think the nature of what we are looking at and how we are dealing with it — particularly given the fact that these are obviously very serious allegations that have been made — inevitably it is going to end up in court.

‘I think fans will get the benefit of full disclosure in the fullness of time.’

October 2018 the Club said: "The Club and Mr Rush have settled their respective differences on agreed terms, they are now moving on with their lives and no further comment will be made."

Quite a U-turn that don’t you think? As a fan I would have enjoyed the benefit of full disclosure in the fullness of time, to have a proper understanding of the governance of the Club. I don’t know what went on obviously, but it seemed to me then as it does now, that Morris wanted Rush out of the door and for him to carry the can, and threw as much mud and legal weight as he could to achieve that, not giving Rush any chance to put forward his own full version of matters. Rush didn’t get the opportunity to exercise his right of a fair hearing under employment law nor did he get his day in court. 

[sage]

15 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

That is of course correct my learned friend; I did not present in any way to suggest otherwise. If you like two different stories, here’s another:

May 2017 Morris said: ‘Obviously, in a situation like this, Sam has every right to defend his position.

‘I anticipate this will end up in the courts and we are relishing that opportunity.

‘I think the nature of what we are looking at and how we are dealing with it — particularly given the fact that these are obviously very serious allegations that have been made — inevitably it is going to end up in court.

‘I think fans will get the benefit of full disclosure in the fullness of time.’

October 2018 the Club said: "The Club and Mr Rush have settled their respective differences on agreed terms, they are now moving on with their lives and no further comment will be made."

Quite a U-turn that don’t you think? As a fan I would have enjoyed the benefit of full disclosure in the fullness of time, to have a proper understanding of the governance of the Club. I don’t know what went on obviously, but it seemed to me then as it does now, that Morris wanted Rush out of the door and for him to carry the can, and threw as much mud and legal weight as he could to achieve that, not giving Rush any chance to put forward his own full version of matters. Rush didn’t get the opportunity to exercise his right of a fair hearing under employment law nor did he get his day in court. 

Oh it was a rooster up and everyone wants to write thier own history but he was Chief Executive during a ruinous time and certainly made decisions that were not in the best interest of Derby County.

Whether that is due to incompetence or nefarious behaviour is open to debate. If you have a good enough lawyer.

 

[i-Ram]

Just now, sage said:

Oh it was a rooster up and everyone wants to write thier own history but he was Chief Executive during a ruinous time and certainly made decisions that were not in the best interest of Derby County.

Whether that is due to incompetence or nefarious behaviour is open to debate. If you have a good enough lawyer.

We will never know my friend, and perhaps for the best. My purpose of posting is not to defend Rush either; he wasn’t my cup of tea at all, and lost any favour with me following his poor treatment of Clough at the end.  I choose more simply to challenge some assertions on here that Morris good/Rush bad. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

We will never know my friend, and perhaps for the best. My purpose of posting is not to defend Rush either; he wasn’t my cup of tea at all, and lost any favour with me following his poor treatment of Clough at the end.  I choose more simply to challenge some assertions on here that Morris good/Rush bad. 

@HuddersRam needs to do some serious digging (and have a good knowledge of the law of libel) in a few years’ time.

[Mostyn6]

5 hours ago, cheron85 said:

If you say so - You have no idea and I have no idea because neither of us were there

My idea comes from us swapping and changing managers every few months when Rush was in charge - And after he left we stuck with managers until they decided to leave

I think the 'long term' approach has been all Morris - I think Rush wanted promotion ASAP at all costs so he could put it on his CV because that was the only important thing to him

You obviously have a dislike for Morris and the way he's gone about things - I choose to buy into a guy who genuinely cares for the club and is a fan rather than a guy who doesn't and is more interested in making money than the long term welfare of our club

 

5 hours ago, cheron85 said:

You do seem to have a classic case of confirmation bias going on here - You don't like Morris and therefore it's obviously all his fault - And I fully appreciate the 'buck stops' with him and that's why my initial comment was that his biggest mistake was trusting Rush - I still feel all the mistakes were made in that period where he put his trust in Rush to run things

I don't know one way or the other whether it was Rush or Morris making the decisions cos I wasn't there - And neither were you - But at least I understand that and am open to other ideas - You quote speculative things which may or may not have happened as hard facts because they fit your argument

We got into FFP trouble because of spending in the Rush era - every other financial decision since has been affected by that

Loads of chairmen go into dressing rooms to see their teams - It's one of the perks of being an owner - We have no idea what was said in there and no idea of the exchanges - Just what journalists for highly disreputable newspapers decided to concoct (the same ones which said we were going to lose our FFP case and be deducted 21 points)

We also have no idea about the Pearson situation - But since he's completely cuckoo it's not hard to think anyone might fall out with him for good reason - But again, all newspaper speculation

Just for reference, at Breakfast Club, Mel admitted that HE HIMSELF decided to sack McClaren when asked by @Eddie, but then added that Clement was a Rush recommendation. 

[Curtains]

Paul Clement wasn’t happy was he.  
 

Remember The Derby Way comments by MM 

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1054440037?-260:828

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/feb/09/Derby-county-paul-clement-gamble-sacked

[Tyler Durden]

6 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Paul Clement wasn’t happy was he.  

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1054440037?-260:828

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/feb/09/Derby-county-paul-clement-gamble-sacked

This is the most salient part of the article :-

The question that keeps popping up, though, is what exactly did Derby and Morris expect when they appointed Clement? He was a novice manager, despite his strong coaching background with Chelsea, Paris St-Germain and Real Madrid.

 

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

This is the most salient part of the article :-

The question that keeps popping up, though, is what exactly did Derby and Morris expect when they appointed Clement? He was a novice manager, despite his strong coaching background with Chelsea, Paris St-Germain and Real Madrid.

 

TD, for me it was another example of blue sky thinking and no downside consideration.  At he time I thought it was a fairly good appointment but to abandon matters to him so that he can sink or swim, ummm

[cheron85]

18 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

 

Just for reference, at Breakfast Club, Mel admitted that HE HIMSELF decided to sack McClaren when asked by @Eddie, but then added that Clement was a Rush recommendation. 

Fair enough - I stand corrected

It still doesn't account for Rush being a smelly doo-doo head though does it?

(yeh, that's right... pretty sure I came out of that with my dignity intact)

[DCFC Kicks]

In regards to managers:

• He shouldn't have sacked Clement
• He shouldn't have sacked Mac 2 

It's easy in hindsight to judge the hiring of managers but:

• He shouldn't have hired Pearson - It took a long time to recover from what he did to the club.
• He shouldn't have given Cocu a 4 year contract

[Asanovic70]

Yes, I agree hindsight is easy. I think Mel Morris' biggest mistake was to run the club as a fan, as pointed out by others, rather than being detached. Perhaps he ought to have appointed a Chief Executive Officer though he inherited Rush. Mel could have retained a close day-to-day involvement, but a CEO could have been the channel/intermediary between owner & team/manager, providing necessary distance.  

Rush proved to be the wrong CEO in my opinion (commercial opportunities, sponsorship, iPro). We could have done with someone like Huw Jenkins at Swansea, remember how he angered us regarding the Bodde saga, fighting his club's corner? He was seen as a visionary at one stage, identifying a style & philosophy & sticking to it, always appointing managers comfortable with it rather than changing the ethos of the club to suit the new manager. It provided an element of stability. Swansea, like us, under Smith in the PL, suffered from a law of diminishing returns, eventually mistakes are made, & Jenkins became unpopular, but he presided over their initial ascent & left a flourishing Academy. 

I think Nigel Pearson was an interesting appointment, it wasn't long after Leicester had won the PL built on foundations by Pearson. But he tried to change things too quickly so that it was doomed to fail. At the time, I thought it'd work, but it quickly unravelled.  

The biggest failure was not to stick to a set overall philosophy or strategy (The Derby Way), rather strange when you are a businessman. But then Morris is not a conventional business man, he speculated and cashed in big (Candy Crush). However, his gamble on Derby has been an expensive flop.  Perhaps that was the intent with Cocu (philosophy) , but we have not had a manager in situ for over 100 games since Nigel Clough, Steve McClaren (95) the longest in charge since Mel's assumed full ownership. Too much short-termism.

I also think Mel has been too involved for his own good, 'hands-on'. Entering the dressing-room after the Reading game undermined the manager. I have criticized Cocu, but I wonder how much in-put, if any, the Dutchman had regarding the signing of Rooney. I think it undermined him fatally, though it turned out better than I initially feared. But there was a precedence at Everton with another Dutch manager, Koeman, who had to deal with Rooney after he left United. 

I think Mel's tenure has been a big disappointment, we are closer to L1 than the PL & money, as with football in general, has seen the club's ethos, circa 2014, diluted. We are now associated with questionable financial practices and a club despised by others for giving the perception that we are less than honest.