RamsfanJim

On 01/03/2022 at 17:19, WestLondonRam said:

Did you manage to speak to Q at all? 

Not recently. Have been promised a mtg, but no invite yet...

1 hour ago, WestLondonRam said:

Aren't RAMS trust and BandW meeting Q today?

No

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I think a more important question for @RamsfanJim is why those points are missing, especially the one about the EFL ruling our going to high court has been omitted from the website version. This feels to me like a very important amendment. 
 

If there are two versions circulating I think we need to know why. Is one inaccurate?

The pdf was purely for RamsTrust as the questions came almost entirely from RamsTrust members, and we didn't know how the official minutes would take. Andrew Hosking said there was nothing confidential we couldn't share, but that is not the same as what they are happy to be put in writing as their official response. Naturally they do not want to potentially upset anyone during negotiations, so are more careful what is put in writing.

On 21/01/2022 at 17:11, Ghost of Clough said:

@RamsfanJim do you think you can forward these questions to Gibson?

I can try. I have been in touch with Boro and did receive a response, but they have not responded to me recently (seemingly since it got greater coverage). I will keep trying.

Cheers,

Jim.

5 hours ago, David said:

"They" is the administrators in this instance. If you read it fully it's easy to understand that's it's written by RamsTrust, not Quantuma as has been suggested.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/scg-quantuma-meeting-thursday-20th-january-2022-11am-via-ms-teams/

To save pages of deeply analysing every word, @RamsfanJim (Jim Wheeler) I'm sure would be able to confirm this.

Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...).

I read this as Quantuma as *they*.

One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut...

1 hour ago, Rev said:

I wonder if the administrators have considered opening up renewals slightly earlier than usual, to help with cashflow?

I know it's early, and given the state of the club possibly a risky move, but we did have around 8000 ST holders who left their money in the club during the behind closed door lockdown period.

I would renew tomorrow if I thought that money would see us through until the end of this season without having a January firesale, after all I've paid nothing for this season. 

I appreciate not everyone is in the same boat, but it seems to me like lowing hanging fruit that the admins should consider plucking, if it gives us a fighting chance of finishing this season still in the Championship.

If fans paid with a credit card, would it even be that risky with Section 75 protection?

Maybe it's a question @RamsfanJim@angieramor @ramswriter podcast could put forward to the admins via your respective groups?

 

Legally they can't. They cannot sell a product or service they cannot guarantee being able to provide. They are personally responsible for any money received if it needed to be refunded (if Derby cannot fulfil their fixtures).

Good idea though - which is why we already asked..

Cheers, Jim.

2 hours ago, Boycie said:

The fan groups need to get a virtual meeting sorted pronto.  The timing terrible for that though.

To do what? IF you think it would acheive something we could try to arrange - but I'm not sure of the purpose.

We're OK to share this - full minutes on Monday now.. 

* There are 3 interested bidders that Quantuma are still negotiating with. Each bid is complicated and each is taking time for Quantuma to fully evaluate based on different elements in them.

* Negotiations with HMRC have been extremely positive, but no deal is ever agreed with HMRC until the final proposal is on the table.

* There are verbal agreements with Mel Morris and MSD Capital with regard to the ground.

* Discussions with regard to transfers and contract extensions are being had, but no decisions will be made until the preferred bidder is announced to allow them to make their own decisions.

8 hours ago, RAM1966 said:

Why do you have to run the mins by the Administrators?   The whole point of having Fans forums is to keep the fans informed not to use the positions to glean info you do not pass on to everyone.  You wonder why people take exception to the way that Rams Trust operates and I'm afraid you are just alienating yourself from the majority of fans.

 

 

 

 

This is the same for all groups / meetings. The Administrators can talk to representatives, but when minutes are published and in the public domain they have to be accurate and not break any confidentiality in negotations with creditors and potential buyers - therefore they have to be phrased correctly. On this occasion the club took the minutes and are getting them agreed before sharing. 

55 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Jim, are we just waiting for the nod from the administrators for those meeting minutes? Do we have any indication as to when they will be available?

Yes - they were drafted yesterday, awaiting admin sign off to post

2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Is the RamsTrussed email not working?  Asking for an ordinary fan. 

I believe RamsTrust email is working - but I haven't received any mails today...

51 minutes ago, Yani P said:

The golden share was specific to heritage items rather than key decisions wasn't it?

The shadow board was to provide input to key decisions and assume that could be any fans..not sure how they would be voted onto a shadow board though..but doesn't say it has to be Trust members. 

The Golden share covers: 

The proposed items for which the consent of the shareholder will be required are: a. sale of club stadium (including the grant of security over a club stadium); b. re-location of club outside of the local area (excluding temporary relocation as part of an actual (i.e. not just planned or hoped for) development of an existing stadium e.g. Tottenham’s relocation to Wembley); c. the club joining a new competition that is not affiliated to FIFA, UEFA and the FA and/ or leaving a competition in which it currently plays. This would mean that a future European Super League would not be possible without fan consent; d. club badge; e. first team home shirt club colours; and f. club name (i.e the team playing name rather than the name of the legal entity owning the club).

53 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

This isn't really 'engaging' though is it?

It's using an independent fans forum as a platform to publicise a press release.

Enagaging would have been looking for an existing thread, joining in the discussion and pointing towards the press release, not just copying and pasting it into a new topic!

Apologies, I did look but didn't see another thread - happy for it to be moved.

RamsTrust welcomes the publication of the conclusions from the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance. We contributed both to the recommendations from the Football Supporters’ Association and in-person, presenting to the panel our suggestions and experiences since the formation of the Trust over 19 years ago. We are pleased to see many of our ideas have been incorporated into the proposals.

We welcome the report and recognition of the need for reform of the way football as a whole, and clubs themselves, are run, as Rams fans know only too well.

In particular, we welcome the recommendations to establish an independent regulator and the introduction of a ‘Golden Share’ to be held by the Supporters Trust – to ensure the club cannot make certain key decisions without fans’ agreement. We also welcome the introduction of a ‘Shadow Board’ of supporters which the club is mandated to consult. These are proposals which we have been calling for – particularly in light of events at the club over the past few years. Derby County is specifically mentioned in the report as an example of a poor board structure prior to administration.

These proposals will finally give fans an official voice in the running of their clubs and a formal role for the Trust in protecting the club.

These recommendations will be welcomed by the vast majority of supporters and should help to prevent more clubs in future from facing the same issues we are having now. Whilst this will take some time to be formally brought into legislation and implementation, we can start immediately and a new start for Derby County is the perfect opportunity to make these improvements in the running of the club. As indicated this week by the Administrators, we hope to have the opportunity to begin these discussions with new custodians in the near future.

We look forward to working with the administrators and new custodians of our club to implement these plans at Derby County to ensure a sustainable future for fans and the community.

You can download the whole document here:- https://thefsa.org.uk/news/fan-led-review-is-a-huge-step-forward/

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I agree mostly, but I wouldn't say that RamsTrust is the organisation that should be communicating with the fans. That should be DCFC, who are still a going concern. 

Ramstrust isn't really the organisation to do the comms work regarding what's happening. They won't be privy to some of those discussions anyway so really it's down to the club to talk to us about what is going on - something I don't think they've done a great job so far.

To be fair the administrators did interviews with the press on Sunday. This was an opportunity for fans representatives to ask questions and communicate their responses - and for them to ask us questions (which they did - on feelings of fans etc.).

This was not directly referenced until the meeting last week - but there were questions in the past around Derby confirming their ability to complete the season. If the club cannot confirm that, the EFL has the right to suspend them from the league. They are saying they helped by NOT applying that rule (because this is actually still the case until a takeover, or the administrators bring enough money in to cover costs for the remainder of the season).

There was never an indication that they would have enforced this, but the fact they didn't has clearly helped...

Minutes are now up on the website:- https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/supporters-group-meeting-with-quantuma-23-11-2021/

10 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

May be now is the time to use a contact on behalf of your members to find out the truth. Is there a leak for the EFL feeding this to journalists. Is all this speculation fair on us fans? Is it acceptable for this to be circulated before the horse has spoken?

Get on the phone Trust! Find us the truth.

Interestingly they have contacted us today asking if we have more questions - which is a bit tricky when they haven't actually announced anything yet... We don't actually know if this 'leak' is from the EFL, the Administrators, or potentially even any of the lawyers involved.. (OR even if it is actually true).

33 minutes ago, Macintosh said:

Do you know who has to pay the MSD Holding bill, is that Mel and Pride Park Stadium, or part of the overall debt?

My understanding is that MSD has a charge against both the Stadium & the club (inc. training ground) potentially for different amounts. The Administrators say they have had discussions with them and they are 'onside' in the negotiations - so the repayment will be included in the overall deal (to cover debts and purchase the ground).

Overall debt has not been stated, but will be published within the next 2 weeks with Companies House (they had 8 weeks from data of Admin to produce Creditors Report).

Football debts have to be paid in full and HMRC are preferential creditor for most of their debt.

Intention is to pay 25p in the £1 to remaining creditors, they are negotiating with HMRC on how much they would be prepared to accept (when alternative is nothing if club is liquidated).

Overall figures have not been agreed, so not stated - hence why there are no bids on the table yet (as they don't know how much they would be spending, and what they would get)..

44 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Interesting. I wonder what it means.....

They're trying to settle debts X pence in the pound, clearing the way for a new owner to come in debt free.

OR 

The new owner is decided upon and will make an offer to the creditors.

?

No, this is a standard part of the administration process. The administrators have to identify all creditors and contact them to invite them to a meeting within 8 weeks of being appointed. Ultimately they will have to agree the deal with the creditors to offer the best deal they can. 

We believe the Administrators will now have started to contact all creditors of the club to invite them to a Creditors meeting.

If anyone is aware of anyone who has been contacted, could you let us know as soon as possible? 

50 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I think it was the Ramzone forum in those days that had multiple posters warning of the Amigos from Day 1. They were often met with hostility as we were doing well on the pitch. 

Keep up the good work @RamsfanJim and great news you are involved @angieram

Yes, I used to write articles for Ramzone, that's how I got involved with the Trust. Thanks. 

41 minutes ago, angieram said:

And while it isn't a business, I think it should be run in a business-like way. 

Many years ago, when I first came to work in the voluntary sector, we had a managers handbook "voluntary but not amateur". That about sums it up.

Interesting - because I have been criticised for the exact opposite (trying to run it like a business). What do you think we should do differently? 

41 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I'm aware that the Trust is not a business. I was suggesting that perhaps it should be run more like a business, but again, I was under the impression that membership growth was a current priority. I did try to be clear on this in both of my earlier posts. Again, my ideas would therefore appear to fly in the face of current RT priorities, so outlining and developing such ideas does not appeal as a useful exercise at this time.

Irrespective, I wish the Trust and it's members every success in achieving their current goals. Ensuring the club is not lost forever in a fugue of EFL red tape and undue sanctions is very much the one current RT aim to which I feel fully aligned and the Trust's attempts to facilitate this outcome are of course both acknowledged  and much appreciated.

I did not say we did not want to increase membership, I said we have not made any particular effort to increase 'followers' (on twitter). 

We are not currently taking any specific steps to increase membership, we are focusing on current issues. Going forward we would welcome any constructive suggestions.