Rams Trust: A Letter to the Club

[maydrakin]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

That's a bit harsh, they have done everything they can to put as many representative signatures to the letter as possible. I don't feel they are trying to speak for me but they are trying to say that the views presented in that letter are shared beyond any one group. I don't agree with all the points (particularly the one on board meetings - that is them using this situation to reignite their agenda) but the bulk of what is asked for is pretty level and fair. If nothing else, at least they took the time to put it together and register with the owners the general concern of the club - I don't find that self important as an aim.

My mate was involved with them and went to quite a lot of their meetings, and I originally joined as a member, however the general gist I always got from the officials was “this is our little ramstrust club and you can do things the way we want to or we’re not interested in your input”.

There’s many ways to skin a cat, so to speak, and whilst I do believe they want what is best for DCFC, their approach as self appointed spokesperson for all fans is what rubs people up the wrong way.

[BaaLocks]

6 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Taking the time... and effort... to register their perceived discord is, in itself, commendable.  Arguably better than the likes of me sat on my 'arris doing naff all... but they really do need to consider the wording of such missives, should they have any desire for support from others.

I guess that's the point, if you sit on your jacksie not being involved you remove your ability to do anything other than grumble when you see the outputs. Your right, no debate, but that's all it will ever be unless you take the time to join the discussion. Until then you (not you personally, but in general) choose to exclude yourself from what is said on your behalf*. 

* - resists temptation to make comment on the parallels to so much else happening in society

[Spanish]

13 minutes ago, nottingram said:

I am a bit confused as to how the current board is supposed to “commit to involving supporters in future decision making” when it is quite likely we will soon have a different board. 

Likewise, how can they guarantee the future of the club is secure? I don’t imagine they could absolutely guarantee that even if they were remaining in stewardship let alone when the club is being sold. Of course, hopefully they can make provisions to sell to a buyer who appears to be legitimate but not sure what more they could do in this regard?

I admit some clarity on the ticket situation would be great. People have invested their money into this and do deserve the right to know when they may get it back, even if this is currently that they do not know, it would be a bit of clarity.

It wasn’t long ago the club was being roundly mocked for the volume of club statements released.

because a new board might be under the impression that they need to involve them early doors in order to gain wider fan support.  It is a longer term play I guess but perhaps my mind works differently

[BaaLocks]

3 minutes ago, maydrakin said:

My mate was involved with them and went to quite a lot of their meetings, and I originally joined as a member, however the general gist I always got from the officials was “this is our little ramstrust club and you can do things the way we want to or we’re not interested in your input”.

There’s many ways to skin a cat, so to speak, and whilst I do believe they want what is best for DCFC, their approach as self appointed spokesperson for all fans is what rubs people up the wrong way.

Fair enough, I'd say from the other side the irritation is exactly the opposite - that people think they claim to speak for 'all fans'. I don't think they do, I think they offer a view of fans that is representative but not necessarily claiming to be exclusive.

From my side I am no longer involved but when I was I didn't find them uninterested in my view, indeed they seemed to be crying out for support as it all is a bit much for the same two or three people to carry.

[nottingram]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

because a new board might be under the impression that they need to involve them early doors in order to gain wider fan support.  It is a longer term play I guess but perhaps my mind works differently

Maybe but the current board can hardly “commit” to that. 

[Angry Ram]

It's only a letter. Why are we all getting precious about a word?

Morris will know it's not 100% reflective of the fanbase.

It will get ignored anyway.

[Comrade 86]

The Rams Trust does not speak for me and has no right to infer it does. Whilst I'm not in complete disagreement with either the subtext or validity of its demands, neither am I in full agreement.

It also seems to me that they roundly demean the cub's administrators for a lack of inclusion and open communication, yet we have a good few on here who accuse them of doing the same with own membership. 

All in all, I see no purpose whatsoever to this initiative other than to pile further pressure on the directors of the club and to further divide an already splintered fan-base. Mr Wheeler would do well to consider the potential fallout from any further such activities, especially at a time when the club and the morale of its supporters is at such a low ebb. 

[Eddie]

Divisiveness is fun, isn't it?

Especially when it's divisiveness born out of history ("I got rid of the 3 Amigos"...."No, I did"..."OK, we both did but I got rid of them more than you did"..."Ah, but you didn't do it in my name"..."Hey, I played a part in that - where's my credit?"..."Oh Lord, Kumbaya"...(chucks brick through window and paints badly-spelled slogan)

A sign of the times, I suppose. 

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The Rams Trust does not speak for me and has no right to infer it does. Whilst I'm not in complete disagreement with either the subtext or validity of its demands, neither am I in full agreement.

It also seems to me that they roundly demean the cub's administrators for a lack of inclusion and open communication, yet we have a good few on here who accuse them of doing the same with own membership. 

All in all, I see no purpose whatsoever to this initiative other than to pile further pressure on the directors of the club and to further divide an already splintered fan-base. Mr Wheeler would do well to consider the potential fallout from any further such activities, especially at a time when the club and the morale of its supporters is at such a low ebb. 

Exactly. 

Anyone ever thought Mel could just walk away saying I’ve had enough of this s//t

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Curtains said:

Exactly. 

Anyone ever thought Mel could just walk away saying I’ve had enough of this s//t

What? He's been trying to walk away for a couple of years at least!

[HuddersRam]

Full transparency from me (Ryan) on this one: I was approached to offer some thoughts about what could be done and signed this purely from my personal viewpoint that the club is in disarray and we've spent over a year now not being communicated to whilst seeing the name of the club dragged through the mud.

As just an individual, I felt comfortable doing so because I agreed with the points made, but more importantly because I think that going forward, there needs to be a more united voice for supporters as a whole, rather than the array of random splinter groups which appear when crisis arises every few years. 

I'm not a member of RamsTrust or any supporters groups for that matter, just someone who is looking to try and do something. And I know that we all are but hey, every little helps I guess. And one thing I just want to make clear - absolutely, 100% don't think my name would hold anymore weight than any other individuals would. I live hundreds of miles from PP at the moment in a tiny studio flat, and had to wait until 2018 until to get my first season ticket. I've even been known to cancel Rams TV during the off-season. I'm just a Derby County supporter who was approached and is happy to try and help, all with the best of intentions. 

Understand that in the past supporters groups have been divisive and often don't speak necessarily on behalf of supporters whilst all battling against each other. Maybe this is one of those times, and if so I hold my hands up.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

What? He's been trying to walk away for a couple of years at least!

Well he could just leave and then we go bust. 

[Mucker1884]

16 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I guess that's the point, if you sit on your jacksie not being involved you remove your ability to do anything other than grumble when you see the outputs. Your right, no debate, but that's all it will ever be unless you take the time to join the discussion. Until then you (not you personally, but in general) choose to exclude yourself from what is said on your behalf*. 

* - resists temptation to make comment on the parallels to so much else happening in society

Absolutely not.  Not ever.

Even with such a finely honed jacksie as mine, I still maintain that nobody should (be allowed to) lay claim to speaking on my behalf without my express permission/agreement.  I'm not even sure doing so is even legal, is it?  

Never shall I agree to the bold bit, whilst that underlined bit is included.  All they had to do was take away the underlined bit (metaphorically, of course), and not only would they have lessened the potential/subsequent criticism, they undoubtedly would have garnered more support for their "cause".

But to end with "SIGNED ON BEHALF OF Derby COUNTY SUPPORT!... In capitals... With a bloody exclamation mark!  WTF do they think they are?  

 

... Don't get me wrong, my feelings on this matter are absolutely and categorically nowhere near as strong as my posts in this thread may (mistakenly) infer.  Far from it.  My posting history alone will almost certainly show that I am usually far from opinionated, but nonetheless, there is a principle here, and for once, my gast is truly flabbered!

As I stated previously... but am more than happy to reiterate... my opinion is that the wording (of their letter) alone has left them wide open for fair and just criticism. 

Had they alluded to "We the undersigned", or similar, I doubt I would have even bothered raising my eyebrows, let alone my finely honed jacksie.  

[Mucker1884]

1 hour ago, Rev said:

Should have been Haas.

"Of"!

 

Oh no... sorry... "have"... you're right.  Been on this forum far to long!  ?

[Mucker1884]

32 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

The Rams Trust does not speak for me and has no right to infer it does. Whilst I'm not in complete disagreement with either the subtext or validity of its demands, neither am I in full agreement.

It also seems to me that they roundly demean the cub's administrators for a lack of inclusion and open communication, yet we have a good few on here who accuse them of doing the same with own membership. 

All in all, I see no purpose whatsoever to this initiative other than to pile further pressure on the directors of the club and to further divide an already splintered fan-base. Mr Wheeler would do well to consider the potential fallout from any further such activities, especially at a time when the club and the morale of its supporters is at such a low ebb. 

Beautiful that.

A work of art.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

4 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Absolutely not.  Not ever.

Even with such a finely honed jacksie as mine, I still maintain that nobody should (be allowed to) lay claim to speaking on my behalf without my express permission/agreement.  I'm not even sure doing so is even legal, is it?  

Never shall I agree to the bold bit, whilst that underlined bit is included.  All they had to do was take away the underlined bit (metaphorically, of course), and not only would they have lessened the potential/subsequent criticism, they undoubtedly would have garnered more support for their "cause".

But to end with "SIGNED ON BEHALF OF Derby COUNTY SUPPORT!... In capitals... With a bloody exclamation mark!  WTF do they think they are?  

 

... Don't get me wrong, my feelings on this matter are absolutely and categorically nowhere near as strong as my posts in this thread may (mistakenly) infer.  Far from it.  My posting history alone will almost certainly show that I am usually far from opinionated, but nonetheless, there is a principle here, and for once, my gast is truly flabbered!

As I stated previously... but am more than happy to reiterate... my opinion is that the wording (of their letter) alone has left them wide open for fair and just criticism. 

Had they alluded to "We the undersigned", or similar, I doubt I would have even bothered raising my eyebrows, let alone my finely honed jacksie.  

I'm on your side in this debate, but would you accept the phrase "on behalf of the fans" if there were some sort of hypothetical fan referendum?

Obviously that's never going to happen, and I don't think it should happen either (insert political point here about referendums being far too binary for complex issues).

But let's say the Rams Trust had held a vote, and you were a member. You voted against writing a letter, but the majority position was in favour of writing one. Would you accept being included in the phrase "on behalf of the Rams Trust" then? And if that vote were extended to, say, all season ticket holders, would you accept being included in the phrase "on behalf of the season ticket holders"?

I'm not really making a point here. Just interested. 

[Mostyn6]

I wanna know where Kieran Lee stands on this issue. 

[BaaLocks]

13 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

But to end with "SIGNED ON BEHALF OF Derby COUNTY SUPPORT!... In capitals... With a bloody exclamation mark!  WTF do they think they are?

Can I suggest you read the letter again? They haven't made one single claim - the letter is a series of questions that they (all btw, not just RT) have agreed they want to ask the club. That's all it is - it's not a bloomin' declaration of war or a ransom note...............

[Comrade 86]

6 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

I wanna know where Kieran Lee stands on this issue. 

To attention?

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, nottingram said:

Maybe but the current board can hardly “commit” to that. 

didn't say they could