Simon Jordan

[SamUltraRam]

12 minutes ago, Kernow said:

People need to realise that TalkSport is just noise designed to incite a reaction. It’s essentially clickbait journalism for the ears.

It can’t be a coincidence that every “fan” that calls in is an absolute moron. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re pre-arranged to come on with their nonsensical opinions purely to increase interaction.

That might explain why Mel Morris was a regular on there

[brady1993]

34 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

But that doesn’t excuse what he did yesterday to the man who has paid (part of) his wages since he joined.

Because he was being employed by MM does that mean he should be barred from criticising him ? Employment is a two way straight and on that MM hasn't exactly done his part with his completely inadaquate amouunt of communication to the staff. Thing is what did Rooney say that was so wrong yesterday, he was critical of Mel's behaviour in recent times and critical in particular of his communication to his staff after being asked directly about it in an interview whilst also commending MM for the money he'd put in and that it was time to move past him. Everything he said was within the realms of reasonable professional criticism.

It should be also said that on the other hand that MM (in the brief appearances he's made) has made comments that are thinly veiled criticism towards Rooney.

43 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Rooney called MM insincere, dishonest and said he was glad to see that back of him.

Is this accurate, especially the last line? He said something to the effect of "We need to move past him" not that he was glad he was gone right ? In my opinion it was very different tonally than what you are trying to represent here. The comments about insincerety and dishonesty were about MM's speech to the staff and his interview in particular not necessarily about the guy in general (although I'll concede that isn't much of a stretch).

Honestly I can't help but feel Rooney's comments were perfectly in the realms of reasonable about an individual, robust maybe but from everything that's going off at the club it's not exactly uncalled for. I can think of plenty other managers that would have absolutely torn into MM here. 

[Yani P]

33 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

He's hooked up with Michelle Dewberry and he thought Erik Alonso was a great potential owner for Derby. 

No more questions your honour.

Taken from her own website...

"Michelle Dewberry overcame significant adversity during her childhood and early adult years, growing up in Hull."

 

Sums up Hull I guess..

[Ambitious]

Simon Jordan is bang on the money 90% of the time. 

I don't think he likes Rooney or trusts him with the job, because I believe going by his comments that he sees Derby as a club who shouldn't be a starting point for first-time managers. He had similar reservations regarding Lampard, I believe. 

I think what has happened here, certainly going on a few comments on TalkSPORT today, is that (like our fight with the EFL) only half-truths are being spoken, considered and taken in the completely wrong direction. The Championship is an afterthought of a lot of these stations and it shows in their level of research. 

Mel Morris has clearly closed the tap off and put us into administration when he didn't have to. He could've paid the debts himself and got the club back to a good starting point. However, as he admitted in his interview with Radio Derby, once he decided he would not benefit from any of the finances he put in, he decided against using his own money. He put debts on the club. It's as simple as that.

Rooney was given the opportunity to start his career here, obviously not in these circumstances, so he has every right to feel coerced into a position that he didn't sign up to. The lack of communication has been painful for us, never mind the manager of the club. I just think he's not completely factored everything in. 

People still look at Mel for putting money in the club, the £200m comment is utter drivel (and we know it) as nearly half of that accounts to the stadium that he has in his possession. He's still coming away with this as some unlucky person who gave his last ££ to the club in order to achieve success. He didn't. He gambled and when he decided to want out then he decided to pile debts on the club. I guess he said he doesn't want any of the money owed to him back, although I'm not entire sure that is 100% the case. I guess we will see. 

[cosmic]

40 minutes ago, NottsRam said:

Sorry

Sorry NottsRam, not having a dig at you specifically! Think we're all probably a little exhausted. Was just suggesting we'd be better off not giving these guys and their comments our attention.

[angieram]

4 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Because he was being employed by MM does that mean he should be barred from criticising him ? Employment is a two way straight and on that MM hasn't exactly done his part with his completely inadaquate amouunt of communication to the staff. Thing is what did Rooney say that was so wrong yesterday, he was critical of Mel's behaviour in recent times and critical in particular of his communication to his staff after being asked directly about it in an interview whilst also commending MM for the money he'd put in and that it was time to move past him. Everything he said was within the realms of reasonable professional criticism.

It should be also said that on the other hand that MM (in the brief appearances he's made) has made comments that are thinly veiled criticism towards Rooney.

Is this accurate, especially the last line? He said something to the effect of "We need to move past him" not that he was glad he was gone right ? In my opinion it was very different tonally than what you are trying to represent here. The comments about insincerety and dishonesty were about MM's speech to the staff and his interview in particular not necessarily about the guy in general (although I'll concede that isn't much of a stretch).

Honestly I can't help but feel Rooney's comments were perfectly in the realms of reasonable about an individual, robust maybe but from everything that's going off at the club it's not exactly uncalled for. I can think of plenty other managers that would have absolutely torn into MM here. 

Exactly this. He criticised specific aspects of his recent relationship, when asked directly. 

Odd words are then taken out of context and made into headlines in the media. If all people ever do is listen to or read this narrative, then they believe - and repeat - something completely different. 

Always makes me angry. Not sure who with, the media, I think!

[SamUltraRam]

Even the BBC website's headline yesterday was about how Rooney wouldn't have taken the job if he had known the full financial situation.

The headline should have been that the administrators are positive about finding new ownership - but that doesn't get as many 'clicks'

[Ravabeerbelly]

40 minutes ago, Yani P said:

Jordan will defend Mel as he did pretty much the same thing to Palace that Mel did to Derby..

I listened in this morning and whilst I normal agree with 98% of what Simon Jordan says I didn’t necessarily agree this morning and felt Martin Keown had a far more balanced view of things. 

However I get where SJ was coming from. WR is employed by the club and in turn (was) MM and as with any job, employees aren’t always in a position to demand answers or expect a direct line into the boss and his decision making….it would be no different to a player not always being party to the coaching teams thoughts and decisions.

If MM was ill and unable or unwilling to communicate with the staff over any situation there is no reason why Stephen Pearce wouldn’t or shouldn’t be able to stay in touch. Lines of communications should always be open to an extent and in this case I agree that a) it’s disgraceful that WR or players found out about administration on TV or Twitter and b) the MM statement and it seems his meeting with players lacked any real enthusiasm and came across insincere and almost flippant. Which is not really an acceptable approach given the gravity of the situation. 
 

What I completely disagree with is what I have quoted above. What SJ did and what MM has done are not the same thing at all…..The only similarity being external circumstances did affect both…(Covid for MM and the banking crash SJ). Having read SJ book where he talks extensively and in detail about the sequence of events of Palaces administration amd it’s clear he fought with all he had for as long as he could to prevent it until it was ultimately taken out of his hands and forced upon him.

Until MM opens up on his own process we have no idea if that was the case for him or not…..

[Yani P]

all i will say is you might be right but Palace fans would disagree with you..

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

When MM goes on Radio Derby and sings Rooneys praises pretending everything is ok, he deserves to be called out.

wow

[Sparkle]

Does anyone really care what someone says who is paid to be controversial?

[Yani P]

19 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Does anyone really care what someone says who is paid to be controversial?

He is just bitter that he didnt get the Tango ad gig...

[minesahartington]

2 hours ago, brady1993 said:

Because he was being employed by MM does that mean he should be barred from criticising him ? Employment is a two way straight and on that MM hasn't exactly done his part with his completely inadaquate amouunt of communication to the staff. Thing is what did Rooney say that was so wrong yesterday, he was critical of Mel's behaviour in recent times and critical in particular of his communication to his staff after being asked directly about it in an interview whilst also commending MM for the money he'd put in and that it was time to move past him. Everything he said was within the realms of reasonable professional criticism.

It should be also said that on the other hand that MM (in the brief appearances he's made) has made comments that are thinly veiled criticism towards Rooney.

Is this accurate, especially the last line? He said something to the effect of "We need to move past him" not that he was glad he was gone right ? In my opinion it was very different tonally than what you are trying to represent here. The comments about insincerety and dishonesty were about MM's speech to the staff and his interview in particular not necessarily about the guy in general (although I'll concede that isn't much of a stretch).

Honestly I can't help but feel Rooney's comments were perfectly in the realms of reasonable about an individual, robust maybe but from everything that's going off at the club it's not exactly uncalled for. I can think of plenty other managers that would have absolutely torn into MM here. 

I think it was the way Morris abdicated all responsibility, for the staff, the players and the fans. Awful dereliction of his duty as the “leader” of this club.

loved the glory but totally mishandled the situation. Yes he should be thanked for his efforts, he tried his best. All he needed to do was admit defeat, communicate fully and walk away with the best intentions. He cocked that up. Not too late though. A simple apology and a fair position on the stadium and he may recover some of the gratitude he deserves.

[I know nuffin]

Just for the record I was a senior exec in both of them. Both big companies which ended up in admin 12 months apart. The MD told me about the first one the night before as he wanted me to move to the second company in the group as the first one went under. The owner put the second one into admin, 12 months later with not a word said to anyone except the accountant

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, brady1993 said:

 

Is this accurate?

You asked whether it was accurate to say Rooney indicated he was glad to see the back of MM

This quote is from the BBC website 

“Thankfully now, I won't have the worry of having to get in touch with him."

so yes, what I said is accurate 

I don’t care what he says in private  But if he and his PR advisers think it’s good for Brand Rooney to carry on like this, then we should all be worried.  

 

 

 

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You asked whether it was accurate to say Rooney indicated he was glad to see the back of MM

This quote is from the BBC website 

“Thankfully now, I won't have the worry of having to get in touch with him."

so yes, what I said is accurate 

I don’t care what he says in private  But if he and his PR advisers think it’s good for Brand Rooney to carry on like this, then we should all be worried.  

That really isn't the same thing at all. You really are pushing this topic too hard - for what reason I wonder.

[mwram1973]

23 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You asked whether it was accurate to say Rooney indicated he was glad to see the back of MM

This quote is from the BBC website 

“Thankfully now, I won't have the worry of having to get in touch with him."

so yes, what I said is accurate 

I don’t care what he says in private  But if he and his PR advisers think it’s good for Brand Rooney to carry on like this, then we should all be worried.  

 

 

 

Hogwash

Saying you don't have to worry about being ignored by the chairman is completely different to being glad to see the back of him.

Doesn't suit your agenda though so hey ho ?

[Chester40]

FWIW I think Simon Jordan is a brilliant broadcaster. Nearly always agree with him and he is a funny bloke with a great turn of phrase who can laugh at himself. 

As he is liable to saying himself..he 'has skin in this particular game' so no surprise he is against a manager calling out his owner! Also seems like he has been talking to Mel behind the scenes and knows his side of it  -  ie Mel was ill with Covid, there is a CEO for Rooney to talk to... and the fact Mel had to consider if he had told Rooney of his plans would it have been splashed all over the papers next day.

Didn't agree with him but he argued a good case.

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Ambitious said:

as nearly half of that accounts to the stadium that he has in his possession.

The notion Mel possesses the stadium and that he will ever get any value from it is completely at odds with the facts. MSD have a charge over it, and they have a charge over the shares MM has in the company that owns it. And the company that owns it still owes the club part of the purchase price. You heard the administrators say yesterday that the stadium and the club would both be sold to the new owners. And you heard them say MM was going to waive all his debts against the club. 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Chester40 said:

Also seems like he has been talking to Mel behind the scenes and knows his side of it  -  ie Mel was ill with Covid, there is a CEO for Rooney to talk to... and the fact Mel had to consider if he had told Rooney of his plans would it have been splashed all over the papers next day.

Didn't agree with him but he argued a good case.

Why couldn't the CEO tell Rooney Mel was unavailable? But even so must make Wayne feel good to know the owner doesn't trust him!