Mel Morris interview on Radio Derby 1pm

[atherstoneram]

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

It was an edited interview so perhaps Mel had final say over what was broadcast? - there certainly seemed to be a few key question's that weren't asked (or weren't publicy answered) - I also suspect that whenever Mel said "that's a good question" he either meant that Dawes had asked one off his agreed list or else that Mel was expecting to be asked that and therefore had a pre-prepared answer ready...

Similar to someone being questioned by the police and giving a no comment reply

[brady1993]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

One of the points being made was selling one or both (or other) players would have helped keep us going a bit longer. perhaps long enough for a takeover to go through

This is the bit I'm still left scratching my head about. If we were so close to the wire why didn't we sell somebody; Lawrence being the most obvious because of the fee he would command, the wages we'd save and that we could likely cover him. 

The only thing I can think of is taking the viewpoint that I think you can view a lot of MM's decision through "What would a reckless fan do ?" In this case it's a gamble on not selling off players because a takeover looked immenint so no need to take precautions. TBH it's the one major impression that was reinforced by the interview to me, the premium example being about how we shifted the money we had payed for a manager to mostly pay the wages of the next one. 

Even now I somewhat think this is a last gasp roll of the dice. Whilst I think this is extremely unlikely to happen the following I believe is hypothetically possible; we get taken over before going into adminstration, the new owners clear the debt and with MM out of the picture and with some reassurances from the new owners the EFL ease off their approach towards us. The ultimate result being we get hit with a penalty ranging from a fine to a small points deduction, the embargo gets lifted and all before we are forced to asset strip.

Now I think the above scenario is a bit "magical christmas land" but as I've seen @jono mention a couple times MM just smacks of a gambler and I do think there is a logic of this being his last bet. 

[brady1993]

23 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

It was an edited interview so perhaps Mel had final say over what was broadcast? - there certainly seemed to be a few key question's that weren't asked (or weren't publicy answered) - I also suspect that whenever Mel said "that's a good question" he either meant that Dawes had asked one off his agreed list or else that Mel was expecting to be asked that and therefore had a pre-prepared answer ready...

For what it's worth I think Radio Derby did say it was unedited.

[Wolfie]

31 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

It was an edited interview so perhaps Mel had final say over what was broadcast? - there certainly seemed to be a few key question's that weren't asked (or weren't publicy answered) - I also suspect that whenever Mel said "that's a good question" he either meant that Dawes had asked one off his agreed list or else that Mel was expecting to be asked that and therefore had a pre-prepared answer ready...

Isn't that just a standard interview tactic?. Politicians use it all the time, saying "I'm glad you asked me that" or something similar. I think it's to give a couple of seconds to get that initial thought straight in the head, rather than saying "erm..." or silence.

[Gaspode]

15 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Isn't that just a standard interview tactic?. Politicians use it all the time, saying "I'm glad you asked me that" or something similar. I think it's to give a couple of seconds to get that initial thought straight in the head, rather than saying "erm..." or silence.

It certainly is - and in just the same way you should take a politician's answers witth a pinch of salt, I applied the same approach to Mel's responses....

[ck-]

18 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

19 hours ago, ck- said:

Except that if I recall correctly, we were criticised, even by the broadly supportive original hearing, for having no records for how we calculated values. No process, no formula, and - crucially - no evidence whatsoever.

Did I misremember?

Expand  

There must have been records available for the auditors.

You’d have thought so wouldn’t you? 
But I’m fairly sure I remember the disciplinary committee saying that we could not provide any evidence - no minutes, or formulas, or research. 

[I know nuffin]

Did I hear correctly, Mel said he was running out of cash. Wonder if he means all his cash is tied up in such a way he cannot get instant access

 

[BramcoteRam84]

On the KM podcast he (KM) mentions he’s spoken to people who are in the process of selling businesses to Mel Morris!!!

This isn’t can’t pay anymore, this is won’t pay anymore and he’s prepared to put the club at risk because he won’t stand behind HIS gambles. 
 

I’ve reflected more on that interview and in my initial comments i went easy on him. He had the audacity to say this course of action is the best most positive way forward for the club to get a buyer and move forward. It’s unbelievable he said that!! 
 

The more I think about it I realise what a dire position HE has put us in BY CHOICE and the angrier and angrier I feel.

Edited September 20, 2021 by BramcoteRam84

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

28 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

On the KM podcast he (KM) mentions he’s spoken to people who are in the process of selling businesses to Mel Morris!!!

This isn’t can’t pay anymore, this is won’t pay anymore and he’s prepared to put the club at risk because he won’t stand behind HIS gambles. 
 

I’ve reflected more on that interview and in my initial comments i went easy on him. He had the audacity to say this course of action is the best most positive way forward for the club to get a buyer and move forward. It’s unbelievable he said that!! 
 

The more I think about it I realise what a dire position HE has put us in BY CHOICE and the angrier and angrier I feel.

Absolutely, been saying that since Friday.  Pay your loans off and what's owed in tax.  Take 5 million a year for the ground and at a reasonable sale price . Gift the academy to the club as you've been banging on about it being your legacy for years. He has a point with the EFL and the stadium debacle and the amortisation.  Potentially that cost the club a loan of uncertain proportion, but the basic of running a business is keeping your tax liability straight and we don't owe the figure bandied about for one year of trading.  Other than that , I'm struggling.  Chancer

 

[Seth's left foot]

It’s not often I say this but there’s been a good call on Radio Derby tonight. It was highlighting how our wage bill went from £14m a year when we lost to QPR in the play off final to £40m just a few seasons later! Covid wasn’t invented then Mel! 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

Interview appears to have been taken down now. Conspiracy theory?

[SillyBilly]

8 hours ago, LittleEatonRam said:

Yep. Some people recognised this early on, most didn't. 

My concern crystallised when we signed Shackell back for about £2.5m rising to a potential £4m. We then gave him a three year deal, meaning it would expire when he was 35. Given that he came from a PL club the wage wouldn't have been buttons. I just thought that was madness, but the consensus was 'if he helps us go up it's worth it'. That kind of logic used over and over again has led to this.

In a way I don't blame people for getting swept up it it all, but the lack of questioning of it all at the time amazed me given how recently GSE had steady the ship after the last round of reckless spending.

I don't disagree that we're commenting with hindsight but the benefit of hindsight is we can now talk undisputed facts too. There were a lot of eye-brow raisers to be fair, Johnson for £6M was the one for me. Good mate was a Norwich fan so I got the heads up straight away of how we'd been mugged. Not a bad player incidentally but never £6M. Rush was also plain bizarre, that was indicative of the chaotic way things were being run. It was all on Mel's dime though, or so we thought...until it wasn't.

[LittleEatonRam]

1 hour ago, SillyBilly said:

I don't disagree that we're commenting with hindsight but the benefit of hindsight is we can now talk undisputed facts too. There were a lot of eye-brow raisers to be fair, Johnson for £6M was the one for me. Good mate was a Norwich fan so I got the heads up straight away of how we'd been mugged. Not a bad player incidentally but never £6M. Rush was also plain bizarre, that was indicative of the chaotic way things were being run. It was all on Mel's dime though, or so we thought...until it wasn't.

Absolutely, way over the odds for several players. I think that was down to Morris showing his hand by making it clear we had plenty of money to spend. We also bought players who didn't fit the system simply because they were on form and there to be bought.

Johnson arrived the day after we'd got Butterfield following protracted negotiations with Huddersfield; we broke our transfer record twice within a day. Some thought this was self-evidently a good thing when in fact we were spending like drunken pools winners.

Morris knew what would earn him the adoration of the fans though which is why we were given free scarves and other trinkets, and eventually distracted with other shiny baubles like Lampard and Rooney. The latter was a good example of how Morris either a) couldn't resist one more dalliance with the media spotlight or b) knew exactly what to do when he suspected the fans weren't 100% on his side. Which one it is I don't know, but it's probably a mixture of both.

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, SillyBilly said:

I don't disagree that we're commenting with hindsight but the benefit of hindsight is we can now talk undisputed facts too. There were a lot of eye-brow raisers to be fair, Johnson for £6M was the one for me. Good mate was a Norwich fan so I got the heads up straight away of how we'd been mugged. Not a bad player incidentally but never £6M. Rush was also plain bizarre, that was indicative of the chaotic way things were being run. It was all on Mel's dime though, or so we thought...until it wasn't.

What never (or rarely) gets reported is the weekly wages. Focus is always on the capital spend, but as the earlier post notes the wage bill almost tripled in a few years.... 

[CollyerDCFC]

2 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Interview appears to have been taken down now. Conspiracy theory?

Could it be to do with the legal action referenced in the Wycombe thread?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

3 hours ago, Seth's left foot said:

It’s not often I say this but there’s been a good call on Radio Derby tonight. It was highlighting how our wage bill went from £14m a year when we lost to QPR in the play off final to £40m just a few seasons later! Covid wasn’t invented then Mel! 

Keogh started that by demanding 25k a week to stay and not go to Burnley - just after his wembley treat- this in turned put up Brysons wage who Burnley also wanted and then more for the rest.  Ironically we tried to buy Simon Francis and Matt Ritchie from Bournemouth that summer and that with a fit Thorne would have pissed the division.  Bournemouth turned us down despite being massively over FFP and got promoted.  

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Interview appears to have been taken down now. Conspiracy theory?

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past." - Mel Morris... I mean George Orwell.

Tomorrow, you will believe that there was no interview.

[alexxxxx]

4 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

What never (or rarely) gets reported is the weekly wages. Focus is always on the capital spend, but as the earlier post notes the wage bill almost tripled in a few years.... 

Yeah this is so true. A 5 year contract at 40k a week is 10M. Plus NI contributions. Assume  If you've signed them for £10M that means every year you lose over £4M on the books... How big clubs can ever justify paying big transfer fees and wages is beyond me

[De22Ram]

"Thats a great question" ?!! Ive heard a lot of millionaire/billionares are sociopaths ? 

[Crewton]

We only bought Johnson and Buttercup because Hughes and Bryson got injured in the opening fixture. Clement wanted replacements, Mel said OK and Rush went off and did two of the worst deals in our history. If we'd gone for loans, we'd have saved something like £20M. Shocking decision resulting from shocking bad luck.