AutoWindscreens

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

This is the most emotional season ... Six days a week dragged down daily by horrible news, but the team lift us up every Saturday.
?

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.
A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.
A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.
A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.
A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.
A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.
A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

I reckon if the Wycombe and Boro cases ever got as far as a Court they'd be laughed out of it. The last thing those two would want would be for it to get that far - they want money now. It's a kind of blackmail, plain and simple. I hope the PB throws their claims in the bin.

Also - if we are honest - the scale of losses under a straight-line amortisation policy lays bare the underlying financial situation fairly well. Our policy was based on back-ending losses and essentially pretending worthless players were worth something. Huge losses were only partially offset by a 'generous' stadium sale. The whole pattern is one of overspending compounded by overspending, dodging the final reckoning for as long as possible. And then the final dodge was to put the club in administration and leave the mess for someone else to clean up. I'm trying to work out what the plan was if we hadn't been pulled up on our amortisation and I'm struggling. 

Completely agree.
Whether fans like it or not, Supporters Trusts are the fan's organisation's with the greatest potential to influence the policy of clubs. Whether RamsTrust has lived up to this potential is largely irrelevant. If you want to commit to influencing the club then the Trust is the only real way forward. If you think it is being run or led badly, join and vote for someone better or even stand yourself.    

I don't actually agree with this, having worked for charities my whole career.
Many societies are set up to speak on behalf of a wider community than their actual membership, from political parties down.
The whole point of a democratic vehicle is to allow access to as many members as want to be involved, that way the organisation acheives as much democracy as it can. As it grows it can then do more to reach out to wider and wider groups of people. 
I think Punjabi Rams have a structure and elections, I know the local supporters clubs do. I suspect most of the other "representative" groups don't, I know for example that this was a role thrust upon our Forum that @David felt very uncomfortable with. And as for the democracy of letting a man with a flag "represent" supporters! Sure Nick didn't ask for that, either.
I cannot for the life of me understand why supporters want to pour scorn over the one organisation whose very existence is set up to be the very thing that they all want - a voice in how the club is run.
I'm with @Simmo’s left foot, if more of us had got off our backsides earlier, then we might have been a force to be reckoned with when we were needed. But we aren't  - yet.
 I  have joined because I want to change that. What are you doing about it?

I've recently joined Ramstrust, a very quick and simple process for £2. Suprisingly cheap. I'd suggest everybody should be joining, making their opinion heard. If Ramstrust had 20,000 members then they would be getting a lot more attention from the powers that be!
 

Well, with newcastle joining the diabolical regeme sportswashing club, this does make me think that we should be perhaps courting bids from the most evil governments the planet has to offer.
"Are you a dictator of an oil rich nation who craves international acceptance? Do you wish to raise your nation's profile through association with sporting greatness? Has the dream of seeing your enemies crushed before you and hearing the lamentation of their women become a little dull compared with the excitment of the English Football League? Why concern yourself with crushing dissodents when you could be concerned with Preston away. If this sounds like an escape from the daily grind of dealing with your barbaric security services, please consider buying Derby County! If you think this is for you, please email derbyinterestedparties@quantuma.com"

Easy to knock, more difficult to join and change it from within?