Rams Trust: A Letter to the Club

[Curtains]

57 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

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.

We aren’t precious.  

We just don’t agree slamming MM and th club all the time is the answer or the way forward. 

What is your position on Mel and the club. 

 

[Mucker1884]

5 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

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. 

Good question(s).

This may end up appearing hypocritical, but...

As a member of the Rams Trust or similar (I'm not, by the way), and faced with the above scenario, I might consider resigning my membership?  Rather that than have my name associated with something I didn't fully (100% on each and every point raised) agree with.

 

As a season ticket holder, I would be disgruntled, certainly, with such wording, (as written by you, above) but would just suck it up (as opposed to returning my season ticket!)  (Hence the hypocritical reference!) 
However, had the wording been "... on behalf of the majority of season ticket holders..." and/or stated reference to such a vote and the subsequent statistical results, then yes, absolutely.  I'd have no moral right or desire to counter that scenario. 

 

Oh...
That's assuming that ALL season ticket holders were at least invited to vote, of course.  Had it been a selected and/or random few that were invited to vote, even with reference to such (eg "A majority of 57% of the 5,000 STH's who votes were cast), then I refer back to my previous "disgruntled" comment, as "the majority of season ticket holders" would still not be factual!  

 

 

[Day]

34 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

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. 

Great questions to be fair and why I personally chose to decline the invitation to co sign, reading the replies has justified my position.

I'm not sure how the supporter groups handle this issue of speaking on behalf of their members, be it votes, meetings or what and to be honest it is't any of my business either. 

The way I look at it is if you are a Labour member, vote Labour, this doesn't mean you agree with every point on their manifesto. You simply agree with what they are trying to achieve.

We're never going to agree on every aspect of the club from pitch to boardroom, 1 day on this forum will show that, but why knock others for having different opinions, strong opinions that they felt the need to act? 

Having read the letter and despite not signing it, I never felt once that they were trying in anyway speaking on behalf of myself personally, which the topic is getting lost in and the "who do they think they are". They are Derby fans. 

Would it not be a far better discussion if it focused on the points in the letter and why you agree or disagree, the forum is a platform designed to hold discussions, was never intended as a battle base to throw stones at other supporter groups or fans from other platforms.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 minutes ago, David said:

Great questions to be fair

Praise from @David?

[Cam the Ram]

1 hour ago, Angry Ram said:

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.

And in the unlikely event this does receive a response from someone high up within the club, can we really trust a word that comes out of their mouths nowadays anyway? ?

[Day]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Praise from @David?

I promise not to make a habit of it.

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, David said:

Great questions to be fair and why I personally chose to decline the invitation to co sign, reading the replies has justified my position.

I'm not sure how the supporter groups handle this issue of speaking on behalf of their members, be it votes, meetings or what and to be honest it is't any of my business either. 

The way I look at it is if you are a Labour member, vote Labour, this doesn't mean you agree with every point on their manifesto. You simply agree with what they are trying to achieve.

We're never going to agree on every aspect of the club from pitch to boardroom, 1 day on this forum will show that, but why knock others for having different opinions, strong opinions that they felt the need to act? 

Having read the letter and despite not signing it, I never felt once that they were trying in anyway speaking on behalf of myself personally, which the topic is getting lost in and the "who do they think they are". They are Derby fans. 

Would it not be a far better discussion if it focused on the points in the letter and why you agree or disagree, the forum is a platform designed to hold discussions, was never intended as a battle base to throw stones at other supporter groups or fans from other platforms.

My opinion is the letter is divisive in itself. 

Mel would be justified in thinking the whole world is against him and Pearce and Derby County. 

Could do without Derby fans piling in on speculation as well 

[Mucker1884]

18 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

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...............

I don't need to read it again, and I fully agree with you. 
It is not the topic I have contention with.  Not their questions.  Not even the fact that they are "Bothering Mel/The board when they appear to be otherwise engaged".  The subject matter... however trivial (or not) some of us would consider it.

The fact is, they do claim to be speaking/writing, on behalf of Derby County support(ers).  That is what I find wrong and unacceptable.  That alone.

I reiterate, my ramblings on here (mostly in response to people quoting me, I hasten to add... I do find it rude not to respond in that situation) may appear to show I have strong feelings on this matter.  I can assure, I really don't!

 

Try this...

Hey Mel,

I'm a poster on dcfcforumthingy, and me and some others think you have made a right pigs ear out of running the club... so there!

Signed on behalf of all dcfcforumthingy users whose usernames begin with M or B.  Send. 

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

I don't need to read it again, and I fully agree with you. 
It is not the topic I have contention with.  Not their questions.  Not even the fact that they are "Bothering Mel/The board when they appear to be otherwise engaged".  The subject matter... however trivial (or not) some of us would consider it.

The fact is, they do claim to be speaking/writing, on behalf of Derby County support(ers).  That is what I find wrong and unacceptable.  That alone.

I reiterate, my ramblings on here (mostly in response to people quoting me, I hasten to add... I do find it rude not to respond in that situation) may appear to show I have strong feelings on this matter.  I can assure, I really don't!

 

Try this...

Hey Mel,

I'm a poster on dcfcforumthingy, and me and some others think you have made a right pigs ear out of running the club... so there!

Signed on behalf of all dcfcforumthingy users whose usernames begin with M or B.  Send. 

Glad you didn’t say C lol ? 

[BaaLocks]

2 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Hey Mel,

I'm a poster on dcfcforumthingy, and me and some others think you have made a right pigs ear out of running the club... so there!

Signed on behalf of all dcfcforumthingy users whose usernames begin with M or B.  Send. 

They did, genuinely it reads to me 'Signed by Derby County Supporters' and then lists out the names of the supporters it means, specifically to not claim to then be a statement on behalf of every living Derby fan. Exactly as you have suggested.

[MaltRam]

RamsTrust were the epitome of a local action group cliche when I dipped a toe in years ago, and I can't believe they've changed. Good luck to them, but meh.

I haven't read the letter, because it's irrelevant what they have to say. Mel Morris, who I love to bits, has had a damn good go and come up short. The club is on it's arse, and will remain so until someone stumps up to buy us. RT, the supporters club, us collectively or as individuals...we can write as many letters as we like, it won't shift the debts by a quid and it won't bring any investor a step nearer signing the contract.

 

[Day]

7 minutes ago, Curtains said:

My opinion is the letter is divisive in itself. 

Mel would be justified in thinking the whole world is against him and Pearce and Derby County. 

Could do without Derby fans piling in on speculation as well 

I don't want to turn this into another review of his tenure again, it's been done to death these past few weeks.

Not sure how this letter has been sent, if it's just online or has been emailed, posted, but I hope Mel is avoiding all forms of social media to be honest, focussing on his health, family and finding a buyer for the club.

He's looking to hand over the reigns and move on. Absolutely nothing to be gained from reading online comments now, doesn't need to bother himself with all that. 

[GB SPORTS]

2 hours ago, Rev said:

Should have been Haas.

I shouldn't have been trying to work whilst half asleep. 

The prog didn't work out well either. 

[Mucker1884]

2 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

They did, genuinely it reads to me 'Signed by Derby County Supporters' and then lists out the names of the supporters it means, specifically to not claim to then be a statement on behalf of every living Derby fan. Exactly as you have suggested.

It reads how it reads.  The words all add up to make sentences!

It starts with "Derby County supporters request..."
It then includes "... supporters need to know..."
And then concludes with "Signed on behalf of Derby County support".

What you are apparently seeing (emboldened, above) would have been much more palatable.

 

 

Anyway... this is my favourite bit of this whole thread...

From @David:

Would it not be a far better discussion if it focused on the points in the letter and why you agree or disagree, the forum is a platform designed to hold discussions, was never intended as a battle base to throw stones at other supporter groups or fans from other platforms.

He's right, and as I don't have particularly strong views on the contents of the letter, I'll let others discuss.

I've played my part in almost ruining this thread, and for that, I add my apologies.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Jeez, our club is in the poop, nobody knows what going on and the thing that animates more than most posting in this thread is that they weren't consulted, we've got a poet signing it and someone who signed it blocked a poster on this forum or they think the tone is a bit aloof.

It's a request for info, written by a group of fans who - collectively - have a fair claim to represent more than a single point of view. If you care enough then join Ramstrust (trust me, they will happily take all the help they can get) or set up your own group. I might get on my hind legs at Nick claiming to speak for the fans but at least he's making the effort to do so, not sitting behind some keyboard going 'well they didn't ask me before sending it'.

Let's go through their questions:

1. Is the club's future secure? Even if it isn't, they aren't going to admit that. The answer will also be "Yes, we're doing everything we can to ensure the best for the club. We're looking forward to a takeover taking place very soon which will allow the club to move forward"

2. ST refunds. Fair enough on this as it's been 14 months since we weren't allowed to go to games.

3. Involving supporters in decision making at the club - "we always appreciate feedback from fans on how to improve the experience. At this moment in time, supporters will not be invited to the board."

4. Virtual meetings. Well, Mel is trying to sell up and reportedly wasn't in good health. Anyone expecting virtual meetings for the time being isn't being realistic.

5. Current financial position. Impossible for the club to say until the EFL appeal is concluded. As has been stated many many times before, the embargo is lifted when the accounts are submitted. The accounts will be submitted following the appeal.

6a. Takeover. Answer: "Pending"

6b. Stadium. Why would the board commit to no risk of PP and the club being separated? They already are.

 

The only reasonable question is about ST holders. The answers to a couple of questions are already out in the open. The remaining questions aren't valid for the current ownership.

[BaaLocks]

10 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

What you are apparently seeing (emboldened, above) would have been much more palatable.

Yup, my last words on it too - hoorah from many I hear. Just to say, the paste of the letter on page one of this thread here is clipped, the actual version does actually say what you suggested.

[Curtains]

16 minutes ago, David said:

I don't want to turn this into another review of his tenure again, it's been done to death these past few weeks.

Not sure how this letter has been sent, if it's just online or has been emailed, posted, but I hope Mel is avoiding all forms of social media to be honest, focussing on his health, family and finding a buyer for the club.

He's looking to hand over the reigns and move on. Absolutely nothing to be gained from reading online comments now, doesn't need to bother himself with all that. 

That’s just it in a  nutshell ? .

I have criticized in the past certain aspects of Mels tenure but it’s no good bashing the guy all the time .

We should be thankful for lots of things he has got right not just the things he has got wrong and I hope to god he doesn’t read some of the vitriol on social media.

My view is communicating about season ticket refunds ( I have had mine ) would be difficult at the moment but I do know as a season ticket holder I had Rams Tv free for loads of games which was brilliant and I’m sure the money will be sorted but that’s part of being a fan in my eyes. 

I honestly believe every man and his dog are piling in on Derby at the moment. 
 

Om not joining them so best wishes to Mel / Pearce and Derby County and the fans. 
 

Let’s stick together but nicely 
 

[cosmic]

Easy solution here: any issues you have with the letter representing your own views can be clarified with an additional letter from yourself representing your own views.

(This post may or may not represent my own views)

[Spanish]

18 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Let's go through their questions:

1. Is the club's future secure? Even if it isn't, they aren't going to admit that. The answer will also be "Yes, we're doing everything we can to ensure the best for the club. We're looking forward to a takeover taking place very soon which will allow the club to move forward"

2. ST refunds. Fair enough on this as it's been 14 months since we weren't allowed to go to games.

3. Involving supporters in decision making at the club - "we always appreciate feedback from fans on how to improve the experience. At this moment in time, supporters will not be invited to the board."

4. Virtual meetings. Well, Mel is trying to sell up and reportedly wasn't in good health. Anyone expecting virtual meetings for the time being isn't being realistic.

5. Current financial position. Impossible for the club to say until the EFL appeal is concluded. As has been stated many many times before, the embargo is lifted when the accounts are submitted. The accounts will be submitted following the appeal.

6a. Takeover. Answer: "Pending"

6b. Stadium. Why would the board commit to no risk of PP and the club being separated? They already are.

 

The only reasonable question is about ST holders. The answers to a couple of questions are already out in the open. The remaining questions aren't valid for the current ownership.

6d is a weird one.  If they confirm then we get a 12 point penalty at least for the evidence we gave to DC

[IslandExile]

It would have been sufficient to say:

"Signed by the following Derby County Supporters".

The fact that some of them are associated with supporter organizations indicates that, while they do not speak for their organizations' members, at least as individuals, they are pro-active in the supporter community.