POLL: Stephen Pearce - Do you sack him? (ask him to resign)

[twinkletoes]

This " man " must go asap rotten to the core same as his previous employer

[richinspain]

I voted (reluctantly) that he should go. I did however vote that he should walk himself. He's been heavily involved in probably the worst financial period of the club's history, however we don't know how much say he had with regards actual amounts to spend. As @Ghost of Clough says, although stretching the limits with the accounts would be down to him there is strong evidence that there was nothing actually wrong with them. He should however walk so as to not have a sacking on his CV.

[Rev]

Isn't he on a fixed term contract, I've always assumed so? 

Sam Rush was, I don't see why he'd be any different.

With luck, it'll expire in June anyway.

[B4ev6is]

8 minutes ago, Rev said:

Isn't he on a fixed term contract, I've always assumed so? 

Sam Rush was, I don't see why he'd be any different.

With luck, it'll expire in June anyway.

If rather he walked now or as soon new owner in through the door.

[Kernow]

We should have a complete clean slate in terms of the day-to-day running of the Club from the non-playing side of things.

Regardless of if he'd done a decent job or not, I think he should move on. And that's a big if.

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Would be interested to know why people think he deserves to be "got rid of".

P&S
It's still debateable as to whether we implemented a compliant policy or not, despite everything. Pretty much an even split of opinion from all people involved in making the verdicts, almost all of those with an accounting background were in favour of it being compliant after all. Yes, we were set to fail P&S massively regardless of the policy used, but that's much more down to the recruitment failing than the policy itself.

Administration
Mel and the EFL both played a role in this. Mel for deciding to pull the plug after choosing to spend unsustainable amounts of money. The EFL for going on a 3 year long pursuit against the club for the stadium and amortisation policy which resulted in several failed takeovers which would have kept us out of administration. What was Pearce's role in this?

Agree with GoC. Pearce was an employee tasked with making Mel's plans work. He nearly succeeded.

There are two main issues here, FFP/P&S and administration

On FFP, Pearce needed to try to level the playing field disastrously tilted against us by parachute payments. He nearly did it too - we were promotion candidates for most of Mel's tenure. My argument has always been that our level of spending wasn't the problem, it was what we spent the money on. If instead of buying Bradley Johnson, we'd have bought a different player for £6m and sold him two years later for £5m, FFP would have been fine - same with Anya, Butterfield, Blackman, Malone etc. But we bought badly - and that is probably nothing to do with Pearce. Yet he had to find a way to mitigate this and came up with the stadium sale and residual value amortisation. The first was shown to be legitimate and the second took several hearings and is still debatable. I think our FFP problems are caused by the Premier League and Mel's poor choice of managers/recruitment teams, rather than Pearce.

Then there's the administration. We went into administration because Mel Morris built a club which relied on a wealthy benefactor putting regular money into it and then stopped putting money in. I'd suggest that there was nothing that Pearce could do about that situation. Mel Morris is 100% to blame - either he spent too much and ran out of cash, or simply got bored of his plaything. To blame an employee for his boss's actions is pretty dubious.

I can't see how Pearce can remain at the club once we exit admin, but we should remember that he is just the monkey - it's the organ grinder who nearly killed us.

 

[Gringo]

I cannot see how Pearce can be fired, his contract can be terminated and paid up, but under employment law he is "bullet proof" from firing, so the whole context of this topic is wrong.

[I know nuffin]

13 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

I cannot see how Pearce can be fired, his contract can be terminated and paid up, but under employment law he is "bullet proof" from firing, so the whole context of this topic is wrong.

Think the last job the administrators will do will make him redundant

[RoyMac5]

25 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I can't see how Pearce can remain at the club once we exit admin, but we should remember that he is just the monkey - it's the organ grinder who nearly killed us.

 

This monkey couldn't have told Mel that he needed to spend less then?

[richinspain]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

This monkey couldn't have told Mel that he needed to spend less then?

Does anyone know whether he did or not?

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, richinspain said:

Does anyone know whether he did or not?

Mel.

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

Isn’t he just helping Q until sale complete and then offski. Thats what I have been assuming.

He may be doing a useful job through this process for all I know. Wouldn’t want him around any longer than takeover though.

Not sure how that works with the poll.

[Steve How Hard?]

I think it would be foolhardy to dispense with him too hastily and I  would presume that is the only  reason he remains in situ. He is surely the only man left at the club with any in depth knowledge to help untangle the financial mess.

Eventually he will undoubtedly be replaced. As it stands he has a vital role in convincing Kirchner that the books aren't as bad as we all fear and that a takeover is doable. It's his last act at the club and he quite simply has to succeed if the club is to survive. 

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Steve How Hard?
Bad spelling

[richinspain]

28 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Mel.

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

He’s been second-in-command during what’s probably been the darkest period in our club’s history.

He also claimed publicly not too long ago that the club was in reasonable financial health, which has turned out to be anything but the case. I won’t say anything libellous, but I’ll leave you to your own conclusion as to whether he was being honest in his assessment or not.

Get rid, without even a second thought.

Mods! 

 

 

Oh, sorry, as you were ?

[Mihangel]

3 hours ago, TomBustler1884 said:

Clearly he has been party to some catastrophic decision making at the club and he will have played a role in that. He, more than anybody, will be keen to move on to something else when the time comes.

However, just for a bit of perspective, he still reported to Mel. Anyone who thinks he had an equal decision making position, or was able to influence what Mel did to any great extent, is probably a bit naive. I'm sure he received many of the assurances and promises we all did.

This won't be a positive post, and I'm certainly not standing up for Stephen, he doesn't need me to! It's just good sometimes to take a step back, I don't think everything is always as clear cut as we think. Football clubs are murky places with lots of rumour, with no decisions made by committee. Could he have done more to prevent the mess we're in? For sure, but we will never know the ins and outs.

He will go, 100% and that will be the right decision. But ultimately, he isn't the main culprit in all of this imho.

 

 

Good post - Pearce is clearly not the main culprit but it can't be understated that the financial stability of the club was largely something he should have either taken care of. My other half is currently in a similar position where either the club she is working with does things correctly or she walks to preserve her professional integrity (and letters!!)

Overall though, yes, he was in a difficult position, I don't think he (or Morris for that matter) are bad people, they just made major misjudgements.

[Turk Thrust]

2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

He’s been second-in-command during what’s probably been the darkest period in our club’s history.

He also claimed publicly not too long ago that the club was in reasonable financial health, which has turned out to be anything but the case. I won’t say anything libellous, but I’ll leave you to your own conclusion as to whether he was being honest in his assessment or not.

Get rid, without even a second thought.

Being pedantic, but you can’t say anything libellous because that would be slanderous. You could write something libellous though. Ok back to my Malbec

[Animal is a Ram]

While he may not have been ultimately culpable for the events that have led us down this dark path, I think the poison he has gathered would make his position untenable.

Many see him as the shadow Mel, rightly or wrongly - and, for what it's worth, I follow @Ghost of Clough and @CornwallRam's thoughts on that one - I'm sure it would upset many if he was still to be involved.

I don't see it happening, I'm sure CK/GC will prefer to have their own man in. The club needs a clean slate.

[SSD]

Millions in debt

Local businesses out of pocket

DCFC jobs needlessly lost

Lied about the healthy finances of the club

Nearly 100+ years of club history gone down the drain

 

There's not a kind bone in my body left for the man. Do the right thing and leave without another penny in your bank account.

 

[ck-]

1 hour ago, I know nuffin said:

Think the last job the administrators will do will make him redundant

They can’t. He’s not redundant. The role of CFO will be required in a new organisation. You can’t make someone redundant and then appoint someone else into them exact same, or very similar, role. It’s basically constructive dismissal.

Sacking him is unlikely to be straightforward. While we may not be happy with the way things have turned out, it’s not obvious that he was actually incompetent at his job.

 Painful though it may be, if we truly want rid of him, we’d have to offer him an incentive to leave. 

i did vote “Sack him” but on reflection I’m not so sure.