Fan Forum (not this one)

[alram]

19 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

I thought the forum was a bit of a non-event really. 

What exactly did Stephen Pearce do wrong at the club? Serious question. 

He was CEO at the club during its most mismanaged period in its history. I don’t care if he did Mel’s donkey work he still did it which resulted in huge penalties.

[Stive Pesley]

13 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

What exactly did Stephen Pearce do wrong at the club? Serious question. 

That's the million dollar question. No one is really sure. All we know is that he's been here for 10 years. He was CFO when Sam Rush was sacked for alleged financial irregularities. As CFO either he was negligent in policing what was going on, or he was complicit in what was going on. Yet he stayed in post. He was CFO/CEO throughout the MM FFP-busting glory years and eventual admin. Again he was either negligent or complicit. Yet he is still here

At the forum he was asked outright whether he thinks he could have personally done anything differently to avoid what happened with FFP/Admin and he changed the subject.

So we don't know that he did anything wrong, it's just a general feeling of something not adding up - and the fact that when questioned at a public forum he refused to address it doesn't help allay anyone's fears

It's not a witch hunt, or a vendetta - just fans who want what's best for the club. Administration was such an emotionally draining time, we all want to move forward with a clean slate. And we have that in terms of an owner, a squad and a manager. But the CEO - nope - same guy who let it all go to s**t last time. Only fair that we question that

 

[Loughborough Ram]

I am not in anyway defending Pearce but I'd be interested to know how many of the Johnny big b*ll*cks on here, with expert financial acumen, and ability to be a ceo, would have given Mel Morris what for, and absolutely disobeyed him and the majority of his decisions.

My guess would be, approximately, zero. Its easy to talk a good game on a Internet chat room, it's another when everything rests on your decisions, and you will actually be proven right or wrong instead of dealing in hypetheticals 

[alram]

2 minutes ago, Loughborough Ram said:

I am not in anyway defending Pearce but I'd be interested to know how many of the Johnny big b*ll*cks on here, with expert financial acumen, and ability to be a ceo, would have given Mel Morris what for, and absolutely disobeyed him and the majority of his decisions.

My guess would be, approximately, zero. Its easy to talk a good game on a Internet chat room, it's another when everything rests on your decisions, and you will actually be proven right or wrong instead of dealing in hypetheticals 

I don’t think it matters whether we will give Mel what for in his position, the reality is he shouldn’t be here still

 

he isn’t a good operator because under his watch the club has been terribly ran & still is now.

[Stive Pesley]

2 minutes ago, Loughborough Ram said:

I am not in anyway defending Pearce but I'd be interested to know how many of the Johnny big b*ll*cks on here, with expert financial acumen, and ability to be a ceo, would have given Mel Morris what for, and absolutely disobeyed him and the majority of his decisions.

My guess would be, approximately, zero. Its easy to talk a good game on a Internet chat room, it's another when everything rests on your decisions, and you will actually be proven right or wrong instead of dealing in hypetheticals 

It's a fair point - and if he'd answered the question at the forum by saying that

"I was Mel's employee and I was just following orders, there were things I felt uncomfortable about but if I'd questioned them, then Mel would have sacked me"

I'd say fair enough, that makes sense. Then at least we know and can stop questioning it

But he didn't. 

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

14 minutes ago, alram said:

He was CEO at the club during its most mismanaged period in its history. I don’t care if he did Mel’s donkey work he still did it which resulted in huge penalties.

That doesnt answer the question Alram.

[alram]

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

That doesnt answer the question Alram.

if that doesn’t answer your question then you should be asking the man yourself as that’s the only person able to answer your question

 

my opinion is the club should have been gutted with everybody responsible for that cancerous regime and Pearce was at the heart of it

 

i suppose all those working at nazi concentration camps were just following orders!

[Wolfie20]

1 minute ago, alram said:

if that doesn’t answer your question then you should be asking the man yourself as that’s the only person able to answer your question

 

my opinion is the club should have been gutted with everybody responsible for that cancerous regime and Pearce was at the heart of it

 

i suppose all those working at nazi concentration camps were just following orders!

What an absolutely crass comment!

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

13 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

That's the million dollar question. No one is really sure. All we know is that he's been here for 10 years. He was CFO when Sam Rush was sacked for alleged financial irregularities. As CFO either he was negligent in policing what was going on, or he was complicit in what was going on. Yet he stayed in post. He was CFO/CEO throughout the MM FFP-busting glory years and eventual admin. Again he was either negligent or complicit. Yet he is still here

At the forum he was asked outright whether he thinks he could have personally done anything differently to avoid what happened with FFP/Admin and he changed the subject.

So we don't know that he did anything wrong, it's just a general feeling of something not adding up - and the fact that when questioned at a public forum he refused to address it doesn't help allay anyone's fears

It's not a witch hunt, or a vendetta - just fans who want what's best for the club. Administration was such an emotionally draining time, we all want to move forward with a clean slate. And we have that in terms of an owner, a squad and a manager. But the CEO - nope - same guy who let it all go to s**t last time. Only fair that we question that

 

I would imagine David Clowes has all the answers to my original question and with that information has decided to keep Pearce in position. Mel caused admin by refusing to fund the club anymore. The amortisation as used by Derby was within the original rules. As I say, what did he actually do wrong?

[Stive Pesley]

Just now, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

As I say, what did he actually do wrong?

If the answer to that is "nothing" and your summary is correct then he should have said that at the fan forum when asked directly

The fact he blatantly swerved it is bound to make people suspicious

 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

12 hours ago, Premier ram said:

 

                                     This  relentless Warne bashing is getting very tiresome

Sack him and it stops.

It's that simple.

[YorkshireRam]

10 minutes ago, Loughborough Ram said:

I am not in anyway defending Pearce but I'd be interested to know how many of the Johnny big b*ll*cks on here, with expert financial acumen, and ability to be a ceo, would have given Mel Morris what for, and absolutely disobeyed him and the majority of his decisions.

My guess would be, approximately, zero. Its easy to talk a good game on a Internet chat room, it's another when everything rests on your decisions, and you will actually be proven right or wrong instead of dealing in hypetheticals 

Whataboutism isn't really making the point you think it is here... When a company goes into administration, the reality is that the CEO doesn't ordinarily get the luxury of retaining their position. The captain usually has to go down with the ship. It's not about whether he stood up to Mel, it's why in this case, when the club is having a complete overhaul, the CEO and former CFO who presided over one of the most dodgy financial periods in the club's history, has kept his job when that defies the usual process?

I've wondered whether Clowes retaining him could simply be due to the fact he knows where the skeletons are, and that knowledge may still be needed to properly rectify the issues and stabilise the club short-term... Plus, all the talk of Pearce really trying to keep the club going during admin- he was probably trying to save his job and retain a wage, that was likely entirely borne out of self interest, rather than a genuine compassion for the club and its fans. 

I just find it strange that with little to no information or context we have on the matter, so many are backing him at this point, even though he was literally Mel's right-hand man...

 

[Loughborough Ram]

The demand for everybody to know everything these days is ridiculous and in many cases unworkable.

If we become successful in the next few years will you put it down to the work done by Stephen Pearce? No of course you wouldn't. 

He is part of the whole and if David Clowes thinks that he is the best man for the job then our opinions really count for nothing, which is as it should be.

[MackworthRamIsGod]

10 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Have you actually watched it back? He says the exact opposite. 

I prefer to judge him on his actions rather than what he says, he tends to deviate somewhat from what he actually says.

[RadioactiveWaste]

7 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

If the answer to that is "nothing" and your summary is correct then he should have said that at the fan forum when asked directly

The fact he blatantly swerved it is bound to make people suspicious

 

There's all kinds of ways he could have answered without going into details or compromising his or others statemed position but making clear that he regretted things that were done or how things turned out.

I think folks just want to see some recognition from him seeing as he's someone who was in a key place or responsibility for the previous regime.

[maxjam]

2 minutes ago, alram said:

if that doesn’t answer your question then you should be asking the man yourself as that’s the only person able to answer your question

 

my opinion is the club should have been gutted with everybody responsible for that cancerous regime and Pearce was at the heart of it

 

i suppose all those working at nazi concentration camps were just following orders!

Well this conversation has just taken a turn for the worse 🫤

How do we know that Stephen Pearce wasn't waking up every morning scratching his head figuring out how to deal with the latest MM mad decision?  Do we know if Pearce had any forewarning re. administration or did MM make that decision himself and surprise everyone, Pearce included?  Did David Clowes see enough in Pearce working tirelessly to save the club during the administration period?  And has Clowes, an accomplished businessman himself seen enough of Pearce during his 1yr+ time at the club to view Pearce an asset?  I have no idea tbh, but the truth as is typically the case, probably lies somewhere in the middle. 

I trust David Clowes and the people now running the club however, we're back on an even financial keel and our reputation with the EFL has improved, if they think Stephen Pearce is doing a good job, I'll trust their judgement over some internet forum noise.

Roll on Saturday, its been a long 2 weeks on here.

[Loughborough Ram]

1 minute ago, YorkshireRam said:

 

I just find it strange that with little to no information or context we have on the matter, so many are backing him at this point, even though he was literally Mel's right-hand man...

 

But people aren't backing him.

Personally I'm backing David Clowes, who has taken a decision to keep him on, and he knows a lot more about the situation than all of us on here put together.

Surely it's even more strange that with, as you say, little to no information or context, people are condemning him.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Whataboutism isn't really making the point you think it is here... When a company goes into administration, the reality is that the CEO doesn't ordinarily get the luxury of retaining their position. The captain usually has to go down with the ship. It's not about whether he stood up to Mel, it's why in this case, when the club is having a complete overhaul, the CEO and former CFO who presided over one of the most dodgy financial periods in the club's history, has kept his job when that defies the usual process?

I've wondered whether Clowes retaining him could simply be due to the fact he knows where the skeletons are, and that knowledge may still be needed to properly rectify the issues and stabilise the club short-term... Plus, all the talk of Pearce really trying to keep the club going during admin- he was probably trying to save his job and retain a wage, that was likely entirely borne out of self interest, rather than a genuine compassion for the club and its fans. 

I just find it strange that with little to no information or context we have on the matter, so many are backing him at this point, even though he was literally Mel's right-hand man...

 

Knowing where the skeletons are has always been my suspicion on why he's been retained.

My other suspicion is not so much that he was desperate to keep his job so much as rescue his professional reputation. Had DCFC gone down the tubes, he'd not just lose his job here, he'd likely never work again in accountancy/finance.

"So Mr Pearce, you were CFO of Derby county when they entered administration, why should our company hire you in any role related to our finances. That's before we ask you about the accounting records that led to EFL points deduction...."

 

[Tamworthram]

31 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

That's the million dollar question. No one is really sure. All we know is that he's been here for 10 years. He was CFO when Sam Rush was sacked for alleged financial irregularities. As CFO either he was negligent in policing what was going on, or he was complicit in what was going on. Yet he stayed in post. He was CFO/CEO throughout the MM FFP-busting glory years and eventual admin. Again he was either negligent or complicit. Yet he is still here

At the forum he was asked outright whether he thinks he could have personally done anything differently to avoid what happened with FFP/Admin and he changed the subject.

So we don't know that he did anything wrong, it's just a general feeling of something not adding up - and the fact that when questioned at a public forum he refused to address it doesn't help allay anyone's fears

It's not a witch hunt, or a vendetta - just fans who want what's best for the club. Administration was such an emotionally draining time, we all want to move forward with a clean slate. And we have that in terms of an owner, a squad and a manager. But the CEO - nope - same guy who let it all go to s**t last time. Only fair that we question that

 

How can you say “no one is really sure” and “we don’t know that he did anything wrong” but in the next breath describe him as being “either negligent or complicit” and “the same guy who let it all go to s**t last time?” Feels like a bit of a contradiction to me.

My view is that too much went wrong whilst he was in a very senior position for him to be faultless but, as you say, we simply don’t know.

A straight and detailed answer to the questions aimed at him regarding the administration would have been very interesting but, let’s be honest, it was never going to happen. The best he could have said is there are obviously things that could have been done differently and that lessons have been learned but he was never going to go into any detail. 

[alram]

13 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Whataboutism isn't really making the point you think it is here... When a company goes into administration, the reality is that the CEO doesn't ordinarily get the luxury of retaining their position. The captain usually has to go down with the ship. It's not about whether he stood up to Mel, it's why in this case, when the club is having a complete overhaul, the CEO and former CFO who presided over one of the most dodgy financial periods in the club's history, has kept his job when that defies the usual process?

I've wondered whether Clowes retaining him could simply be due to the fact he knows where the skeletons are, and that knowledge may still be needed to properly rectify the issues and stabilise the club short-term... Plus, all the talk of Pearce really trying to keep the club going during admin- he was probably trying to save his job and retain a wage, that was likely entirely borne out of self interest, rather than a genuine compassion for the club and its fans. 

I just find it strange that with little to no information or context we have on the matter, so many are backing him at this point, even though he was literally Mel's right-hand man...

 

yes bang on right you have articulated much better than i did

 

pearce should have been gone.