FA Charge - Ongoing

[BramcoteRam84]

11 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Not buying this, sorry. Yes, we are all speculating, but even if Rush did construct many of these unusual deals (and he probably did) there is no way the finance director (Stephen Pearce) would not be aware of them, unless he was totally incompetent. Pearce would also have had a fiduciary duty to Morris to advise him of unusual financial arrangements.  Rush was sacked in May 2017, a long time after a lot of these unusual deals, but Pearce survived the witch-hunt. It makes you wonder why, unless the real reason Rush went is that him and Morris had a major bust-up. Morris was full of bluster and bravado at the time as to how he was going to sue the arse off Rush, but remind me how did that end?  A lot of posters seem to want to totally blame Rush, or at least excuse Morris from the issues arising, but the likelihood is that all three of the Club executives in the last six years have got fingerprints all over the mess that was created, and two of them apparently remain fighting the issues with the FA, EFL, and Middlesborough FC today.

You make some good points. I Didn’t think Pearce was at the club at the time but he was so yes it makes you wonder. Incompetence? Too much trust in the CEO who would have been his boss not Mel. He wouldn’t have necessarily read the details of the contracts. Maybe it all blew up because Pearce eventually found out and brought it to Mel’s attention leading to Rush being fired and Pearce’s promotion.

How did Rush and Morris’s out of court settlement go? Was it Morris paying rush? Was it the other way around? Don’t think any details were released were they? 
 

We simply don’t know. But those two remain constant so will get the flak. I get it. Just think it’s unfair on Mel who has just tried to get us competing in an unfair league, and I still find it hilarious that Boro are pushing when the year we beat them to the playoffs - they still had a bigger budget than we did due to parachute payments.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, BramcoteRam84 said:

We simply don’t know. But those two remain constant so will get the flak.

You could excuse it and say it was a one-off?

[Ken Tram]

3 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Thats all within budget. Soon as you trip over the annual budget, the CFOs klaxons go off and everything stops.

The rule allowing you to do 2x£25k, but not 1x£50k, seems to give your board a false sense of financial control ... and perhaps the Derby Board had similar rules that allowed executives to do some things under the radar.

(Assuming that your annual budget is much more than £50k!)

PS. I'm just asking. I'm interested. Not criticising!

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

The rule allowing you to do 2x£25k, but not 1x£50k, seems to give your board a false sense of financial control ... and perhaps the Derby Board had similar rules that allowed executives to do some things under the radar.

(Assuming that your annual budget is much more than £50k!)

PS. I'm just asking. I'm interested. Not criticising!

It is true that controls rely more on observant staff to spot circumstances where possible "circumvention " is being attempted. And of course any system of control has potential abuses.

But my original point was that sam appears to have been able to enter into arrangements of 1m without reference.

Or that being worthy of alert.

[angieram]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

Probably about time that we stopped blaming Gibbo for everything.  We appear to be very good at creating messes without the involvement of anybody else.  Get the feeling if we were  a horse somebody would have shot us by now out of pity.  The phrase the Derby Way is a gift that just keeps on giving

I am not blaming him for everything. I am blaming him for threatening to sue the EFL if they didn't charge us and then trying to join in the EFL appeal against the result even though they aren't allowed to.

He did both those things and that's why I think he's a banker. Especially when he's pushed the rules himself in the past. I think he's exhibiting vindictive behaviour.

[IronRam 140.6]

31 minutes ago, Ken Tram said:

The rule allowing you to do 2x£25k, but not 1x£50k, seems to give your board a false sense of financial control ... and perhaps the Derby Board had similar rules that allowed executives to do some things under the radar.

(Assuming that your annual budget is much more than £50k!)

PS. I'm just asking. I'm interested. Not criticising!

Haha the dark arts of imaginative cost planning in order to prevent capital investment projects from going above thresholds requiring them to go out to tender**.  

Can't be so different from trying to circumvent/work within FFP.

It was, and remains a massive pain in the ass.

**the reason was timescales involved in tendering, not any sort of monetary scam.