Our owners.

[ilkleyram]

Ram Don, I agree with much that you say but the one point that I think has changed significantly is the management structure of the club.  

 

It isn't/wasn't the Board that sacked Nigel, nor will sack Steve MacLaren - that's Sam Rush's job as CEO.  Steve doesn't report to the Board, he reports to Sam and Sam reports to the Board/Chairman.

 

The Board will be informed of and consulted about the decision because it is clearly an important and very public role within the club, and they may disagree with it, in which case they might end up having to find a new CEO, but it isn't the Board's job to run the club on a day to day basis.  

 

In Nigel's case Sam will have made the decision, would have cleared it with the Board and most probably just Andy Appleby, and then gone ahead.  That's Sam's job.

 

In previous times the relationship between football manager and Chairman was the most important in any club.  Nowadays it's that between CEO and Head Coach - in part it's why Forest are struggling because they don't have a CEO and why, I would bet, Billy wanted his cousin in that role, so that he could run the club himself.  It's also why the relationship between Sam and Steve is important to our success.

[Animal is a Ram]

No complaints about this ownership group. Especially when you look at the various comedy/tragedy stories that have come out over the last few years - Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers, Forest over the past week and a bit.

 

This is a well run, well financed, and now a well managed club. Long may it continue.

[eddie]

The board work on behalf of the investors. The investors want a return. The only way to get a return is in the Premier League. Therefore the boards job is to get promotion.Maybe the investors were happy to replace Glick with Rush? They were certainly happy Rush replaced Clough with McClaren, presumably with their blessing.There's little evidence of more money being put in to deliver promotion. And I suspect Burnley's success this season on a small budget will be held up as an excuse not to invest in the summer if we don 't go up. I don't trust the board or the investors to have Derby's best interests at heart but that's just my opinion. I can see why people are happy with them but I think they've had two very good managers in Clough and McClaren and this has covered up for their shortcomings.

Today's news that they converted the debt to equity rendered your post redundant.

[AndyB]

No it didn't. It just means that the investors have ensured that they get money back in the event that they sell the club. Maybe with promotion a possibility they are preparing for the potential take over of the club as a Premier League entity?

[GboroRam]

Talk about being unable to do right for doing wrong. The board can't win with you Andy. Unless they are handing cash out for free you're not happy.

First it was lack of ambition and refusal to invest. Now we're firmly headed for playoffs you can't use that argument. So let's start on the loans - no, can't use that either. Well, still, it's not free funding. If the club gets promotion and sells to fresh investors, why shouldn't the owners get a good return for the tens of millions they've thrown in, with little gratitude from some fans?

We're performing well, have a manager getting the best from the squad. They've not supported in the way of a QPR or a Leicester but I don't think it's realistic to expect any owner to throw tens of millions into chasing a dream. Look what that did for Leeds. Forest. Blackburn. Portsmouth. Rangers. Hearts. Next stop Bolton, QPR, maybe Palace. Coventry. The list is frightening.

[AndyB]

I just don't trust them. I'm entitled to my view and I don't mind if people don't agree with me.

The reason we're 4th in the league is down to McClaren and his team, and Clough for the foundations. They are being successful in my opinion despite the owners / board not because of them.

No-one is more delighted than me with the performances on the pitch but I'm not going to start crediting the owners / board!

As for comparisons with the financial disaster clubs, that's like saying in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. We can do better, in my opinion.

[G STAR RAM]

I just don't trust them. I'm entitled to my view and I don't mind if people don't agree with me.

The reason we're 4th in the league is down to McClaren and his team, and Clough for the foundations. They are being successful in my opinion despite the owners / board not because of them.

No-one is more delighted than me with the performances on the pitch but I'm not going to start crediting the owners / board!

As for comparisons with the financial disaster clubs, that's like saying in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. We can do better, in my opinion.

 

In which case I assume you won't blame the board/investors if we don't get promotion because that will also be down to McClaren and his team also surely?

[GboroRam]

It's always easy to say"spend more". No guarantee it'll work but if it doesn't you can always say that it needed a few million more. That's what Billy would say, anyway.

[G STAR RAM]

It's always easy to say"spend more". No guarantee it'll work but if it doesn't you can always say that it needed a few million more. That's what Billy would say, anyway.

 

I really don't know what people's obsession with wanting big transfer fees is and not sure why they think and our owners not wasting big money is such a problem?

 

Do they think that a players ability is directly linked to his transfer fee?

 

Using this logic Sammon is better than Martin and Soldado better than Van Persie.

[davenportram]

The owners are here for the long haul.

They now gave initial purchase plus the loans turned to shares in the club and can't get a return on them unless they sell us (for considerably mote than they paid taking into account the amount just converted to shares) or we make a profit so they can be paid dividends.

In short they now need promotion to make a profit.

[G STAR RAM]

The owners are here for the long haul.

They now gave initial purchase plus the loans turned to shares in the club and can't get a return on them unless they sell us (for considerably mote than they paid taking into account the amount just converted to shares) or we make a profit so they can be paid dividends.

In short they now need promotion to make a profit.

 

If they are hoping to make their money back through dividends they are definitely here for the long haul!

[curb]

The board work on behalf of the investors. The investors want a return. The only way to get a return is in the Premier League. Therefore the boards job is to get promotion.

Maybe the investors were happy to replace Glick with Rush? They were certainly happy Rush replaced Clough with McClaren, presumably with their blessing.

There's little evidence of more money being put in to deliver promotion. And I suspect Burnley's success this season on a small budget will be held up as an excuse not to invest in the summer if we don 't go up. I don't trust the board or the investors to have Derby's best interests at heart but that's just my opinion. I can see why people are happy with them but I think they've had two very good managers in Clough and McClaren and this has covered up for their shortcomings.

If Clough and MacClaren are very good managers as you say, then surely they've done well to employ them?

Is it in Derby's best interest to have a really **** manager?

[G STAR RAM]

 

If Clough and McClaren are very good managers as you say, then surely they've done well to employ them?

Is it in Derby's best interest to have a really **** manager?

 

Yes but would have probably been better if we had paid big transfer fees for them, that way we would have been showing real ambition to get promoted.

[eddie]

No it didn't. It just means that the investors have ensured that they get money back in the event that they sell the club. Maybe with promotion a possibility they are preparing for the potential take over of the club as a Premier League entity?

 

They only get their money back if somebody pays them more for their shares than the value they converted them for.

 

It's completely the opposite of what you are trying to imply.

[LeedsCityRam]

As for comparisons with the financial disaster clubs, that's like saying in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. We can do better, in my opinion.

 

Honest question, you say we can do better - which board of directors/owners would you say are markedly better than GSE?

 

I'm not engaging in some GSE love-in - they've made some serious blunders, particularly early on in their reign but hey, none of us are perfect & they were pretty much absolute novices to English football. Of course, they were going to make statements that in the cold light of day seem brash ("worldwide brand" etc). No, they've not thrown loads of money at it but there again, why should they? Not every club can be a Leicester or a QPR in this division - to suggest otherwise is like engaging in a suicide pact with every other ambitious club below the Premiership.

 

They have undoubtedly supported the club financially - remember, this is a group of "investors" with no connection to Derby or indeed England. They've no loyalty to us but have underwritten our losses & now are converting loans to equity. You dismiss that but its a massive difference & a massive boost for us. In the meantime, they've respected our heritage (no name, colour changes here) & looked to give the club solid foundations - increased spending on the academy, various tweaks to the ground, clever (if sometimes unusual) marketing.

 

OK, you don't want to compare us to financial basketcases but look at Coventry. Another club taken over by "investors" - look how mercenary the money-men sometimes are. You want the power-crazed fridge salesmen at Forest? The lunatics at Cardiff & Hull?

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[AndyB]

The idea that I want our owners / board to spend like QPR or Leicester is just bizarre, I have never said that. However, they have missed a trick on a number of occasions when an extra player or two may have made the difference between also rans and play offs.

This season itself has seen injuries and suspensions cost us points where a stronger squad may have helped bridge the gap between play offs and top 2.

These are fine margins and not significantly bigger investments, the irony being that the extra revenues generated from a more successful team may have paid for itself. It certainly would if we'd been promoted.

People are making extreme arguments, but I'm merely pointing out a poor strategy from poor owners / board, in my opinion. They've made a litany of mistakes since taking over and are only smelling of roses now because the managers have made a decent fist out of a very small Championship budget.

[G STAR RAM]

The idea that I want our owners / board to spend like QPR or Leicester is just bizarre, I have never said that. However, they have missed a trick on a number of occasions when an extra player or two may have made the difference between also rans and play offs.

This season itself has seen injuries and suspensions cost us points where a stronger squad may have helped bridge the gap between play offs and top 2.

These are fine margins and not significantly bigger investments, the irony being that the extra revenues generated from a more successful team may have paid for itself. It certainly would if we'd been promoted.

People are making extreme arguments, but I'm merely pointing out a poor strategy from poor owners / board, in my opinion. They've made a litany of mistakes since taking over and are only smelling of roses now because the managers have made a decent fist out of a very small Championship budget.

 

When?!

[ramblur]

I can see where you're coming from,Andy (I too thought they might have done a bit more in the 11/12 Jan window),but you can't escape the fact that they've put in a heck of a lot of loot.If our success owes a lot to the work of our last 2 managers,then to be fair they appointed them both and would be fully vindicated if we achieved promotion.

[GboroRam]

The idea that I want our owners / board to spend like QPR or Leicester is just bizarre, I have never said that. However, they have missed a trick on a number of occasions when an extra player or two may have made the difference between also rans and play offs.

This season itself has seen injuries and suspensions cost us points where a stronger squad may have helped bridge the gap between play offs and top 2.

These are fine margins and not significantly bigger investments, the irony being that the extra revenues generated from a more successful team may have paid for itself. It certainly would if we'd been promoted.

People are making extreme arguments, but I'm merely pointing out a poor strategy from poor owners / board, in my opinion. They've made a litany of mistakes since taking over and are only smelling of roses now because the managers have made a decent fist out of a very small Championship budget.

Poor strategy. Only third in the table. Boo y@nks out. After throwing in 7 million a year I'm p1ssed off it wasnt 8.

[ramesses]

Posters who’ve been critical of the board over the past few years have tended to be critical for different reasons. We’re a varied bunch but, as far as I’m aware, nobody that’s serious has ever seriously accused the owners of supervising a car crash or robbing the club blind.

 

My main criticism over the last few years has been that the owners needed to spend a bit more money on the squad. Not ‘stupid money’ (whatever that means) but a relaxation in the reductions to the wage budget to allow a bit more strength in depth so that the inevitable injuries didn’t end up derailing the progress that had been made. I’d have thought that ‘the model’ our exceptionally wealthy owners were working to over the past few years under Glick/Clough might have taken this into account - but it didn’t seem to.

 

However the signs now are that the yearly reductions in the wage budget might have come to an end (hopefully). There’s clearly more strength in depth in midfield and upfront now and that‘s already saved this season going the way of previous seasons imo.

 

So, if promotion was the target, then our owner’s first financial ‘model’ with Jewell failed, their second ‘model’ with Glick/Nigel failed, but their third ‘model’ with Rush/Schteve looks like it might be more of a success. Given that this third model is what some critics of the board over the past few years wanted then it’s not too surprising that some like me are not complaining…at the moment…that much.