Mel Morris fan club

[Red Ram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

What does it really mean though?

It potentially means the difference between selling the club to a new owner and liquidation.

[atherstoneram]

On 24/09/2021 at 16:41, Pearl Ram said:

Extreme pressure or not, the taxman ain’t going away, you’d have to be completely gaga to think otherwise. Furthermore, he employed a CEO who would also be aware the taxman doesn’t go away. So kindly spare me the if you know what Morris was thinking guff it adds no strength to your feeble argument.

It is noticeable the government suspended winding up orders being issued until the 30th September when the suspension is lifted (Four days time). 

[Crewton]

19 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Mel kept spending until he dropped us in it. There were lots of players we could have spent money on that might have been worth - but the point is we really didn't have that money to spend. 

We had the money then, and the income to pay the bills and service debts with a lower wage bill than 2018/19. What is harder to understand is paying out nearly £5m in the summer of 2020 for Joswiak, Byrne and Marshall when we didn't know whether we'd have any income at all. Sacking Cocu was also a bonkers decision in the circumstances. 

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, Crewton said:

We had the money then, and the income to pay the bills and service debts with a lower wage bill than 2018/19. What is harder to understand is paying out nearly £5m in the summer of 2020 for Joswiak, Byrne and Marshall when we didn't know whether we'd have any income at all. Sacking Cocu was also a bonkers decision in the circumstances. 

I think the fans wanted Cocu sacked !

Most  fans have no clue on club financing .

Mel was torn between the devil and the deep blue sea trying to please fans  

On Administration I think Mel had no option in the end  

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Curtains

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Crewton said:

We had the money then, and the income to pay the bills and service debts with a lower wage bill than 2018/19. What is harder to understand is paying out nearly £5m in the summer of 2020 for Joswiak, Byrne and Marshall when we didn't know whether we'd have any income at all. Sacking Cocu was also a bonkers decision in the circumstances. 

Under Lampard - well I don't think we did have cash to spare, but then neither of us has seen the accounts.

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

I think the fans wanted Cocu sacked !

 

 

Can't think why mate. ?

[sage]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I think the fans wanted Cocu sacked !

Most  fans have no clue on club financing .

Mel was torn between the devil and the deep blue sea trying to please fans  

On Administration I think Mel had no option in the end  

 

Curtains is back !!

(till he is banned again) 

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can't think why mate. ?

Well I know you was an advocate but that’ was probably right but who knows as where we are now might not be preferable 

Appointments of managers is where it’s tricky for owners in Football.  
 

 

[Crewton]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Under Lampard - well I don't think we did have cash to spare, but then neither of us has seen the accounts.

We must have had enough to make the initial payment to Arsenal (Lampard compo, play-off receipts, ST money etc). If that money was needed for liabilities (HMRC etc) later in the season, Mel and Stephen Pearce need their heads examining. 

[kevinhectoring]

12 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

What does it really mean though?

By agreeing to waive the loans, he’s showing he’s acting in the interests of the club, not his own interests 

[RoyMac5]

36 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Well I know you was an advocate but that’ was probably right but who knows as where we are now might not be preferable 

Appointments of managers is where it’s tricky for owners in Football.  

Yeah ain't that the truth. Worse when the owners' ego gets in the way of knowing that's not their job, and not knowing what a good manager is!

Edited September 27, 2021 by RoyMac5

[DCFC Kicks]

I've only just found out about this and I'm not sure if it's 100% true...

George Thorne's contract has to be the most short-sighted, risky thing Mel did. Having to pay West Brom £15,000 every time he played. Apparently that's the reason he didn't play under Lampard and Cocu. Surely someone in accounting could have forecast that there was a scenario where we wouldn't be able to afford him playing 2 years into his 4 year contract!? So we couldn't afford to play him, but were paying him a wage! So we were basically paying him to not play! WHAT THE HELL! 

and Mel didn't even tell George why he wasn't playing for almost two seasons. No wonder he doesn't like him. 

and why didn't we at least let him go to QPR on loan?

honestly Mel, what on earth were you thinking?

[Rampage]

On 25/09/2021 at 14:13, LeedsCityRam said:

I don't think anyone's painting him as a crook or suggesting his heart hasn't been in the right place. Its inevitable the ending place of an ownership will colour people's judgements though.

The reality is he has condemned us to League One football as we won't overcome the 12 point penalty for administration plus the likely FFP 9 point penalty (brought about by his gambling). Yes, potential buyers have come out of the shadows now we're in administration but was there really no cheap deal Mel could have facilitated whilst he was still in charge? 

We talk about his financial gambles as a desire to get us into the Prem but there are gambles & then the kind of gambles that lead to the existential crisis we're now facing. He recognised back in spring 2018 that we needed to rein it in & as a consequence, Rowett left thinking there was to be no more big spending. Little more than 3 months later, we hired Lampard, threw millions around & brought in unbelievable loans for this level - that to me was irresponsibility far beyond a desire to do well. It was this period that incited the attention we now have from the EFL & the rest of the division & to bring in Cocu on a 4 year deal on massive wages, Rooney & spend £10m on Bielik after Wembley 2019 was just astonishing given he was already actively trying to sell the club.

To my mind there's the morality of clearing up a mess you've created - he hasn't done that & is trusting the 'market' of buyers to pick us up & rebuild us. Whether that leads to a brighter future will only become clear in the fullest of time but I will never support his decision to put us into administration - its reckless, shirks accountability & seems entirely in keeping with how he ran the club.

As to the general sentiment of your post & not withstanding my criticism of him above, I do agree with others that we do need to maintain a mature relationship with Mel given his control of PP & loans to him.

We should reconsider our opinions in January when we will be quite a lot better off or a lot worse off. Once again we cannot predict which is more likely. COYR

[Rev]

23 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

I've only just found out about this and I'm not sure if it's 100% true...

George Thorne's contract has to be the most short-sighted, risky thing Mel did. Having to pay West Brom £15,000 every time he played. Apparently that's the reason he didn't play under Lampard and Cocu. Surely someone in accounting could have forecast that there was a scenario where we wouldn't be able to afford him playing 2 years into his 4 year contract!? So we couldn't afford to play him, but were paying him a wage! So we were basically paying him to not play! WHAT THE HELL! 

and Mel didn't even tell George why he wasn't playing for almost two seasons. No wonder he doesn't like him. 

and why didn't we at least let him go to QPR on loan?

honestly Mel, what on earth were you thinking?

That was on the podcast with George Thorne from a while back. 

It's a deal that looks terrible in hindsight, given his misfortune.

However, I think getting George Thorne for an initial layout of £2m, rising to a maximum of £3.5m depending on appearances was, at the time, a bargain.

[i-Ram]

My personal favourite deal during the Mel era was sending Chris Martin off to Fulham for 12 months, with a likelihood of sale, giving him an extended and enhanced contract 6 months into that deal as Mac wanted him back, sacking Mac 2 months later, and then loaning out Martin for a couple of seasons. Genius.

Edited September 27, 2021 by i-Ram

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

9 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

My personal favourite deal during the Mel era was sending Chris Martin off to Fulham for 12 months, with a likelihood of sale, giving him an extended and enhanced contract 6 months into that deal as Mac wanted him back, sacking Mac 2 months later, and then loaning out Martin for a couple of seasons. Genius.

Darren Bent turning up fo rpre season when no-one knew he was coming back is still the best .  An extra 30k a week for 12 months triggered by a sub appearance .  Giving a 29 year old winger a 4 year year deal on over 20 k a week was almost as good.

[BondJovi]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

My personal favourite deal during the Mel era was sending Chris Martin off to Fulham for 12 months, with a likelihood of sale, giving him an extended and enhanced contract 6 months into that deal as Mac wanted him back, sacking Mac 2 months later, and then loaning out Martin for a couple of seasons. Genius.

And finally when we do decide to use him again and a manager wants him, we can't/ won't afford his new deal. Once again shafting ourselves.

[Yani P]

I'm guessing that the Mel Morris fan club only includes Mel Morris?

[hintonsboots]

Good to see another Chrissy Martin thread.

[Chris_Martin]

2 hours ago, DCFC Kicks said:

I've only just found out about this and I'm not sure if it's 100% true...

George Thorne's contract has to be the most short-sighted, risky thing Mel did. Having to pay West Brom £15,000 every time he played. Apparently that's the reason he didn't play under Lampard and Cocu. Surely someone in accounting could have forecast that there was a scenario where we wouldn't be able to afford him playing 2 years into his 4 year contract!? So we couldn't afford to play him, but were paying him a wage! So we were basically paying him to not play! WHAT THE HELL! 

and Mel didn't even tell George why he wasn't playing for almost two seasons. No wonder he doesn't like him. 

and why didn't we at least let him go to QPR on loan?

honestly Mel, what on earth were you thinking?

lets say he played 40 games a season, that's £600,000 a season. Over a 4 year contract would be roughly £2.4m. Plus the initial cost of £2m is actually a great deal for a player of Thorne's ability. However, it was completely reliant on us being in the premier league to afford it & his wages as well. Just another example of Mel's all or nothing gamble.