Jump to content

Mel Morris


Sean

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, IslandExile said:

What do you suggest he do?

Forget, for a moment, how we got here. How do we move forwards?

Cannot sell a club that nobody wants to buy.

Do we take the EFL points deduction to get them off our backs? Will likely mean relegation.

Go into administration? Calamatous.

Open a honest communication with the fans in which he declares: "we're in the poo poo". That'll attract season ticket sales and potential buyers.

So it's all very good demanding action from Mel .... But what exactly?

It's not that nobody wants to buy the club, other struggling clubs have been purchased. 

It's like property, when you buy a renovation house at auction, you pay a lot less than the full price.

Mel has to agree to sell the club for a lot less than he currently is rumoured to want for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atherstoneram said:

Why should someone who wasn't responsible for the accident but got injured accept reduced terms of employment when the person who did carried on as normal. Anti MM , i am anti anyone who behaves in such a manner and also more for the fact the way he has managed to almost ruin the club.

If you were in someone elses car,had a crash,got injured through no fault of your own then got sacked from work would you not expect to try and get your money

One issue here is that he was the elder player and club captain, as such he should have advised the other players to take a taxi home.

It was a complete lack of expected responsibility on his part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Oldben said:

One issue here is that he was the elder player and club captain, as such he should have advised the other players to take a taxi home.

It was a complete lack of expected responsibility on his part

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he’s their workmate who wears an armband on a Saturday, not their dad. 

I’ve known ‘normal’ line managers to get up to all sorts. Football is no different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jayram said:

Keogh was an utter twit for doing what he did but Morris didn’t sack him because of ‘gross misconduct’; he did only went down that route after Keogh refused a much reduced contract. Regardless of the circumstances Morris tried to circumvent established employment norms and ended up costing the club 2.5 million. Another example of his piss poor decision making.

Wouldn't it have cost us that anyway if Keogh had stayed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cannable said:

My point isn’t about whether he deserved the sack. 

It was about the expectations that he should ‘Dad’ his colleagues because he’s a footballer. 

Not sure its even about him acting as dad.

Its about his own actions of turning down taxis laid on by the club and then getting into a drunken colleagues car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/09/2021 at 23:52, G STAR RAM said:

Not sure its even about him acting as dad.

Its about his own actions of turning down taxis laid on by the club and then getting into a drunken colleagues car.

Ah, a drunken colleagues car,who, (it later transpired at court) had a reliance on alcohol. What about Lawrences' actions of turning down the clubs offer of a taxi. Perhaps he thought he was going to be drinking Orange juice or none alcoholic beer all night, somehow i don't think so.

If you are going to look at the actions of one person you also have to look at the actions of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Ah, a drunken colleagues car,who, (it later transpired at court) had a reliance on alcohol. What about Lawrences' actions of turning down the clubs offer of a taxi. Perhaps he thought he was going to be drinking Orange juice or none alcoholic beer all night, somehow i don't think so.

If you are going to look at the actions of one person you also have to look at the actions of the other.

Lawrence had his punishment via the judiciary and was still able to carry out his duties as per his contract of employment. 

Really not sure why you are finding it so hard to comprehend the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

Ah, a drunken colleagues car,who, (it later transpired at court) had a reliance on alcohol. What about Lawrences' actions of turning down the clubs offer of a taxi. Perhaps he thought he was going to be drinking Orange juice or none alcoholic beer all night, somehow i don't think so.

If you are going to look at the actions of one person you also have to look at the actions of the other.

You absolutely don't - each individual's case has to be addressed independently. There were different actions, different outcomes and different consequences for the club and the individuals concerned.

Personally I'd have sacked all 3 if I'd been in Mel's shoes, but as it is now becoming clear, the club finances dictated that the players with any 'value' had to be retained in an attempt to recoup some value from their contracts, whereas a certain individual was unable to fulfil his footballing commitments (and at the time we all thought he'd probably ended his career).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really not sure why you are bothering with circular arguments about something that happened two years ago now, court fines been issued, community service orders completed and driving bans almost completed?

Forest fans singing " he should be in jail" at the game. Can't move on. 

Remind you of anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Lawrence had his punishment via the judiciary and was still able to carry out his duties as per his contract of employment. 

Really not sure why you are finding it so hard to comprehend the difference.

Are you really not capable of seeing why Keogh won his claim against the club, it is not just about being able to play football but that's all you seem to be focused on which is understandable in the same vein that MM did. Lawrence was culpable of causing the accident as was proved by the judiciary. Keogh wasn't able to carry out his contract due to the actions of a Third party.

I really can see the difference it is just you that cannot grasp it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...