Rich84

Valid point - and we are trying to address this. It is often difficult to use the correct wording during a live interview - apologies.

The only advice I would offer to Jim and RT would be, please take care over wording of what you put out. It seems many people get their noses out of joint when they feel that you are speaking on their behalf. If all RT public communications ensure that the questions, opinions and other commentary are clearly on behalf of RT members and sympathisers, rather than having an air of speaking for all Rams supporters, I think it would go a long way to stopping bad feeling amongst general Rams fans. Even the most innocuous of comments will be objected to if it sounds like you are speaking for people who you never consulted with.

I think there are some very valid challenges in the above post, which I will leave for Jim to answer, but for me it depends whether we want to spend our time debating the past history of Rams Trust or recognising that there are genuine attempts to change and to try and work through as many channels as possible to acheive that at a time when the club is in crisis. 
I am not sure the comparison with BAWT is too helpful. They are 14 (I think) well established Twitter posters, who already have big followings on there. I would wager a lot of Rams Trust members never go anywhere near the platform and I only found their twitter presence recently.
Also, BAWT have stated their aim is to bring together fan groups so it doesn't seem right to start a competition between them. 
Surely each fan constituency has a valid place in supporter liaison and I don't think any of the fan groups would argue against this. It doesn't change the fact that Rams Trust are the constituted organisation that is part of the FSA and therefore has that "official" place at the table.
Now we can either moan about that, or get stuck in there to make their job of representing a wide range of supporters a bit easier.
I personally can't comment on the Rams Trust board, I was only aware of Jim before I joined. I have since spoken to a couple of others by email but that is all. 

That is obviously very difficult to answer, because firstly all recent meetings with the club have been with other supporters groups so were not RamsTrust alone. 
Secondly it is very difficult to tell whether the club would have done what they did without our advice. 
For example, at the last meeting we recommended that the club reopen the ticket office, send out season tickets, increase staff in the ticket office etc. (but again these may have been planned anyway). In the last mtg with Mel Morris there was a lot of discussion over whether to sign the 'trialists' (Jagielka, Morrison, Davies, Allsop, Baldock) or promote talent from the Academy. Mel seemed to be arguing it was better to use the academy, whereas the view from the reps there was that we needed more experience. I think he may have been using the group as a sounding board before making a decision. 
In the past there has been discussion on season ticket prices (e.g. When they tried to increase prices for disabled supporters), forming a 'singing section' at the ground, etc... 
I am sure some people will say supporters had no influence, but I am certain the club takes views into account. Any business that ignores its customers is going to fail. 
The meetings also gave representatives the opportunity to question the club on approach and finances. This enables us to hold the club to account, and meant we could highlight in the media when we had concerns so that all supporters could be aware. 

I really don’t get why people are so up tight. It feels like some people have got a vendetta against the club’s official supporters group. I can’t put my finger on it but some of them are decent humorous posters, others I probably would expect.
Other things I have seen is people holding a grudge going back 15 years or more. Good grief!! Time moves on the only people I know who grasp onto things from the past have extra fingers and toes. 
I suppose everyone has their opinion but I for one would like to think as supporters of the same club we all have some common ground to start with. 

If people aren’t happy with something why not have a constructive discussion about where you think it went wrong and what could be done better rather than completely dismissing everything going forward.

Thanks, I wasn't 'bashing the forum' just commenting on my experience so far. 
No, we haven't done a member survey for many years. We could look at doing this, and combine with asking members what more we should be doing - but we will then need more volunteers to do it! 
Once the club has come through this, we could look at this. 

As @Boyciesaid, I believe RT is the recognised group with the authorities, like it or not, I would argue that makes them more relevant.  I don't see the administrators or EFL giving this forum the opportunity to meet and discuss......
I'm sorry, but I have just read the whole thread, and I don't recall @RamsfanJimbashing the forum, the amount of time he's taken to respond and explain is commendable. Yes, some of what he says will upset some here, some may agree totally and some may not care, but I appreciate the time he's taken out to answer the questions, I'm not overly active posting on here, but i do read everything, and tbh there is plenty of rubbish said but also plenty of good views and comments,  that's what you get from a large group of diverse people. 
What I would ask of Jim though, if it is possible to answer, what are the membership numbers and demographic, do you know the ages? Do they have ST's, where do they sit? Obviously with GDPR that would have to have been voluntarily given by individuals, just purely because there is a perception due to those that are visible.

As @Boyciesaid, I believe RT is the recognised group with the authorities, like it or not, I would argue that makes them more relevant.  I don't see the administrators or EFL giving this forum the opportunity to meet and discuss......
I'm sorry, but I have just read the whole thread, and I don't recall @RamsfanJimbashing the forum, the amount of time he's taken to respond and explain is commendable. Yes, some of what he says will upset some here, some may agree totally and some may not care, but I appreciate the time he's taken out to answer the questions, I'm not overly active posting on here, but i do read everything, and tbh there is plenty of rubbish said but also plenty of good views and comments,  that's what you get from a large group of diverse people. 
What I would ask of Jim though, if it is possible to answer, what are the membership numbers and demographic, do you know the ages? Do they have ST's, where do they sit? Obviously with GDPR that would have to have been voluntarily given by individuals, just purely because there is a perception due to those that are visible.

As @Boyciesaid, I believe RT is the recognised group with the authorities, like it or not, I would argue that makes them more relevant.  I don't see the administrators or EFL giving this forum the opportunity to meet and discuss......
I'm sorry, but I have just read the whole thread, and I don't recall @RamsfanJimbashing the forum, the amount of time he's taken to respond and explain is commendable. Yes, some of what he says will upset some here, some may agree totally and some may not care, but I appreciate the time he's taken out to answer the questions, I'm not overly active posting on here, but i do read everything, and tbh there is plenty of rubbish said but also plenty of good views and comments,  that's what you get from a large group of diverse people. 
What I would ask of Jim though, if it is possible to answer, what are the membership numbers and demographic, do you know the ages? Do they have ST's, where do they sit? Obviously with GDPR that would have to have been voluntarily given by individuals, just purely because there is a perception due to those that are visible.

As @Boyciesaid, I believe RT is the recognised group with the authorities, like it or not, I would argue that makes them more relevant.  I don't see the administrators or EFL giving this forum the opportunity to meet and discuss......
I'm sorry, but I have just read the whole thread, and I don't recall @RamsfanJimbashing the forum, the amount of time he's taken to respond and explain is commendable. Yes, some of what he says will upset some here, some may agree totally and some may not care, but I appreciate the time he's taken out to answer the questions, I'm not overly active posting on here, but i do read everything, and tbh there is plenty of rubbish said but also plenty of good views and comments,  that's what you get from a large group of diverse people. 
What I would ask of Jim though, if it is possible to answer, what are the membership numbers and demographic, do you know the ages? Do they have ST's, where do they sit? Obviously with GDPR that would have to have been voluntarily given by individuals, just purely because there is a perception due to those that are visible.

As @Boyciesaid, I believe RT is the recognised group with the authorities, like it or not, I would argue that makes them more relevant.  I don't see the administrators or EFL giving this forum the opportunity to meet and discuss......
I'm sorry, but I have just read the whole thread, and I don't recall @RamsfanJimbashing the forum, the amount of time he's taken to respond and explain is commendable. Yes, some of what he says will upset some here, some may agree totally and some may not care, but I appreciate the time he's taken out to answer the questions, I'm not overly active posting on here, but i do read everything, and tbh there is plenty of rubbish said but also plenty of good views and comments,  that's what you get from a large group of diverse people. 
What I would ask of Jim though, if it is possible to answer, what are the membership numbers and demographic, do you know the ages? Do they have ST's, where do they sit? Obviously with GDPR that would have to have been voluntarily given by individuals, just purely because there is a perception due to those that are visible.

As @Boyciesaid, I believe RT is the recognised group with the authorities, like it or not, I would argue that makes them more relevant.  I don't see the administrators or EFL giving this forum the opportunity to meet and discuss......
I'm sorry, but I have just read the whole thread, and I don't recall @RamsfanJimbashing the forum, the amount of time he's taken to respond and explain is commendable. Yes, some of what he says will upset some here, some may agree totally and some may not care, but I appreciate the time he's taken out to answer the questions, I'm not overly active posting on here, but i do read everything, and tbh there is plenty of rubbish said but also plenty of good views and comments,  that's what you get from a large group of diverse people. 
What I would ask of Jim though, if it is possible to answer, what are the membership numbers and demographic, do you know the ages? Do they have ST's, where do they sit? Obviously with GDPR that would have to have been voluntarily given by individuals, just purely because there is a perception due to those that are visible.

Well, they’re the official supporter group registered with the EFL I believe. 

Jim, there have been numerous posts hidden from view. Be assured this forum is well run.

I agree with @RoyMac5.
People are essentially - cannot think of the right word, not lazy, not lethargic, not apethetic - but essentially they want someone else to do the work for them.
It's not just restricted to football. Look at child poverty, climate change - huge issues. There are a few activists but only a few. But if you asked anyone, they would say they are against children living in poverty or changes to the climate that will bring about untold damage to the world's ecosystem and economy. However, apart from ocassional donations to charity and a bit of recycling, those people are not joining the activists to demand change.
We all want a better outcome for our football club. RamsTrust and its members feel that they may - in some way - help to achieve that by their lobbying efforts.
If people on here - or elsewhere - do not want to join their organization, that's fine.
But some of the nitpicking on here is simply standing aside and picking fault with people for at least trying to do something positive.
That said, it does sound as though there are folks that do have some genuine issues with things that have happened in the past. I have not lived around Derby for some years now, it's only in the past couple of years that I have found this forum, so I do not know the detail of those complaints. So, I cannot comment on those.

What I would like to say though, is that if you would be interested in proactive action but you do have issues with RamsTrust, as it was or as it is, then you could either:
start another organization or join RamsTrust, take an active role and change it from within.

It doesn't matter if he played well against England once. It doesn't matter if he does well for Poland regularly. It doesn't matter if he's the greatest player on the planet.
If he doesn't fit with our way of playing football and cannot adapt to what he's being asked to do, then he's not much value to us. He might go on and do well elsewhere, it doesn't matter to us. It's about what he has shown here, in this setup with this set of managers and players. And unless you're suggesting we start again and build a team and style of play around him, then getting some money in and putting it to best use into areas of the team that need it sounds like a good plan to me. 
I think he's ok, I don't think he's anything particularly special and he doesn't bring anything to the team that others don't. I don't buy into this argument that he's somehow hard done to and neither do I see any spark that makes me think if we tweaked this or that he'd somehow be much better. He's had plenty of opportunities and he's shown himself to be a reasonable player in a reasonable team, same as most of the squad really.

As a friend said to me over the weekend "Norwich are going to take your record this year" I wanted to suggest the initiation of St Claude's Day, the date on which no club can undertake (or equal) our points tally of eleven points. Named in honour of a player more symbolic of our lack of preparedness, ability, and commitment than any other (a statement of recognition in itself) in that 07/08 season the race is now on to predict on what day it will fall this season.
In previous years St Claude's Day has fallen on the following weekends, last season's Covid affected schedule aside it has only three times made it past New Years Day.
2020/21: 4th March (Sheffield United)
2019/20: 22nd December (Watford)
2018/19: 27th February (Huddersfield)
2017/18: 13th December (Swansea)
2016/17: 19th December (Sunderland)
2015/16: 18th January (Aston Villa)
2014/15: 29th December (Leicester)
2013/14: 26th December (Sunderland)
2012/13: 2nd January (QPR)
2011/12: 31st December (Blackburn)
2010/11: 27th November (Wolves and West Ham)
2009/10: 19th December (Portsmouth)
2008/9: 8th November (Spurs)
So, on what day will St Claude's Day fall on this year? I predict it will be the fourth time it has made it past New Years Day but I still think last week in February our record will be safe for one more season.
 

No, it's any number between 0 & 12
Good news is, unlike the EFL's no doubt secret fantasy, they can't increase it
 
12.18     The League Arbitration Panel shall have the power to:
12.18.1  confirm the deduction of 12 points; or
12.18.2  set aside the deduction of 12 points and substitute a deduction of such lower number of points as it shall deem appropriate; or
12.18.3  order that there shall be no sanction at all.

He is neither objective nor professional. The club's auditors and the Independent Panel (which included a qualified accountant) both confirmed that the club's amortisation policy was compliant with FRS 102. Maguire sought to make a name for himself by repeatedly pointing out that the policy was slightly different to that used by other clubs and inferring that we were cheating. The EFL saw this as an opportunity to get back at Mel Morris and took it to the Panel, only for us to be exonerated (save for a need to expand the notes in the accounts). Unwilling to lose face in this matter, the EFL appealed the decision (so much for the independent review process) and set up another panel with no accountants asked to rule on an accounting matter which then (unsurprisingly) found us guilty. It is this which infuriates most of our fans.
As for the stadium sale, this was a one-off opportunity to realise the increase in value of the stadium to ease the FFP situation. The valuation was professionally obtained, and both submitted to and adjusted in accordance with the stipulations of the EFL, before the transaction went ahead. Whether or not the transaction was in the best interests of the club is a moot point, but it was categorically NOT cheating. That has not stopped the media and the EFL trying to smear it as such. For the EFL to bring a disciplinary charge against the club for carrying out a transaction which they had not only sanctioned, but which had actually been adjusted in accordance with their stipulations, beggars belief and can only have been motivated by vindictiveness.
For all of their stated desire for fair play, we have seen precious little of it from the EFL so far. They have an opportunity to redeem themselves if they give the Administrators' appeal against the 12 point deduction a fair hearing. We shall see.

As @PistoldPetesays, everyone apart from Prof Pope seems ok with what was done which suggests @Chris_Dthat maybe he's the one getting paid to say what a client wants.......
Surely, the only ones that matter in any case with compliance are those at Companies House? If it wasn't conforming to the requirements they would have been all over it.
It is clear that we exploited the poorly written rules and once Maguire highlighted it for what ever reason/agenda he had the EFL are saying it isn't correct to their 'hidden' interpretation, just because no one else has tried it that we know of.
They should take it on the chin and amend the rules if that's what they want it to be like in future,  not penalise retrospectively 

Well I don’t know, but as our non-parachute payment income was fairly high but mainly relying on fans attendances, then our budget would have been commensurate to that? And then we didn’t qualify for the Prem loan.

As @PistoldPetesays, everyone apart from Prof Pope seems ok with what was done which suggests @Chris_Dthat maybe he's the one getting paid to say what a client wants.......
Surely, the only ones that matter in any case with compliance are those at Companies House? If it wasn't conforming to the requirements they would have been all over it.
It is clear that we exploited the poorly written rules and once Maguire highlighted it for what ever reason/agenda he had the EFL are saying it isn't correct to their 'hidden' interpretation, just because no one else has tried it that we know of.
They should take it on the chin and amend the rules if that's what they want it to be like in future,  not penalise retrospectively 

As @PistoldPetesays, everyone apart from Prof Pope seems ok with what was done which suggests @Chris_Dthat maybe he's the one getting paid to say what a client wants.......
Surely, the only ones that matter in any case with compliance are those at Companies House? If it wasn't conforming to the requirements they would have been all over it.
It is clear that we exploited the poorly written rules and once Maguire highlighted it for what ever reason/agenda he had the EFL are saying it isn't correct to their 'hidden' interpretation, just because no one else has tried it that we know of.
They should take it on the chin and amend the rules if that's what they want it to be like in future,  not penalise retrospectively 

As @PistoldPetesays, everyone apart from Prof Pope seems ok with what was done which suggests @Chris_Dthat maybe he's the one getting paid to say what a client wants.......
Surely, the only ones that matter in any case with compliance are those at Companies House? If it wasn't conforming to the requirements they would have been all over it.
It is clear that we exploited the poorly written rules and once Maguire highlighted it for what ever reason/agenda he had the EFL are saying it isn't correct to their 'hidden' interpretation, just because no one else has tried it that we know of.
They should take it on the chin and amend the rules if that's what they want it to be like in future,  not penalise retrospectively