RamsTrust

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

I think there are some very valid challenges in the above post, which I will leave for Jim to answer, but for me it depends whether we want to spend our time debating the past history of Rams Trust or recognising that there are genuine attempts to change and to try and work through as many channels as possible to acheive that at a time when the club is in crisis. 

Fair enough but Jim has asked for feedback on 'improving and membership'. That was the pitch and that's what I'm drilling down on as I think any potential subscriber needs to know that this bright, new mission statement is more than fine words. They will have my support as an organisation, but as other posters have pointed out, the reasons given for choosing not to engage before now ae not strictly true. I'll cite Ramzone and leave it there. I think it's also fair to ask how our involvement is actually going to effect change. There has to be a plan, but thus far thee seem only veiled criticisms of us for our 'lack of support' and less than helpful interaction.

1 hour ago, angieram said:

I am not sure the comparison with BAWT is too helpful. They are 14 (I think) well established Twitter posters, who already have big followings on there. I would wager a lot of Rams Trust members never go anywhere near the platform and I only found their twitter presence recently.

I think it's entirely pertinent. BAWT has only been in existence for a month and a half. Big followings or not, RT have had over a decade to generate a significant subscription base et have failed to do so. Surely identifying why will allow them to address the issue better than not doing so.

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Also, BAWT have stated their aim is to bring together fan groups so it doesn't seem right to start a competition between them. 

Not entirely sure how I'm starting a competition. I'm pointing out the disparity in approach and engagement models. There are lessons to be learned which is surely the whole point of this thread. Jim stated that Twitter and FB have been the preferred models for however long the Trust has been in existence, but whatever platform an entity selects, you need to drive traffic. Mohammed and the mountain springs to mind. Jim seems to feel that many fans are hostile to the Trust. I'd venture many of us were wholly unaware of RT until recently. It's fair and helpful to look at the reasons behind that. I see no evidence that the Trust even accepts this fact, let alone has any real intent to address past mistakes. 

2 hours ago, angieram said:

Surely each fan constituency has a valid place in supporter liaison and I don't think any of the fan groups would argue against this. It doesn't change the fact that Rams Trust are the constituted organisation that is part of the FSA and therefore has that "official" place at the table.

I agree fully. In so much, it would be helpful to know that RT's 'official place at the table' will be exploited in a meaningful manner. 

2 hours ago, angieram said:

Now we can either moan about that, or get stuck in there to make their job of representing a wide range of supporters a bit easier.

Herein lies the pinch Angie. How will our involvement effect change other than swelling RT coffers and making subscriber numbers look a tad more respectable? Surely there's some sort of strategy and if not, why not?

2 hours ago, angieram said:

I personally can't comment on the Rams Trust board, I was only aware of Jim before I joined. I have since spoken to a couple of others by email but that is all. 

Me neither, but when a business is failing, where does the buck stop? And do shareholders need to know the board members to evaluate their performance? One can argue that the Trust is not a business, fair enough, but I'd argue it needs to be run like one. Frankly, this thread has only served to harden my view of the the Trust's efforts to date. 

I'll not post further on this thread in any case. I've much to say but little faith it would be seen as anything other than unhelpful, but I'll subscribe irrespective.

 

[Ram-Alf]

10 minutes ago, ossieram said:

How many are active members?

I posted earlier about John Richardson who joined years ago. He wasn't happy with what the trust and asked for his membership to be cancelled, he was still registered as a member over 12 months later even though he hadn't paid since he originally joined.

I also see people saying people should join if they are not happy and change things from within.

Is it possible to change the trusts policies or are they written in stone for all official clubs trust groups?

I agree with you comments on Big John.

All supporters groups are very similar to a Union, They are there to speak on behalf of their members, Not "all supporters", Every 2 years you'd need to be Proposed and seconded to have your name put forward, If there wasn't another member who would challenge you then if you wished you carried on for another 2 years, If challenged then a ballot was organised where your members worked and a vote would take place.

Not knowing how RT works or how those on the top table get to be Chair and Vice Chair, But a good guess would be...no one else wants to be put forward, Or those who are in place of influence have a magic tongue to convince members they are the person to carry on with their work...in essence it's down to the members to challenge and put themselves forward.

[ossieram]

6 minutes ago, angieram said:

The objects and powers (how they acheive the objects) are written into the Trust's constitution,  which I think is pretty standard across all Trusts as they are based on a model constitution. I posted the main ones earlier in the thread. 

I'm not sure what you mean by policies as such. They are usually underlying documents for how an organisation runs its day to day activities. 

Bear in mind this is a totally voluntary set up with no paid staff, they are unlikely to be that many policies.

If you don't agree with the main objects then I don't think RT membership is for you. 

Here they are again:

 

Rams Trust objectives: 

Our objectives are to benefit the community by:

 

-      Being a democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the club and strengthening the bonds between the club and the communities which it serves;

-      Achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the club;

-      Promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and future members of the communities served by the club and engaging with the club to do the same;

-      Operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility, and encouraging the club to do the same

-      Being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all supporters of the club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality, or religious or moral belief. 

Their website is here - https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/

This is one of the reasons why I am not interested in joining the trust and why I would rather be part of a independent fan group that isn't tied to a set of rules.

Fans groups should have a set of guidelines, but also have the flexibility to amend rules and decide how they deal with things like protests without worrying about upsetting club owners or governing bodies. 

 

[Foreveram]

RamsTrust has been invited to a further meeting with the administrators on Wednesday 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I agree with you comments on Big John.

All supporters groups are very similar to a Union, They are there to speak on behalf of their members, Not "all supporters", Every 2 years you'd need to be Proposed and seconded to have your name put forward, If there wasn't another member who would challenge you then if you wished you carried on for another 2 years, If challenged then a ballot was organised where your members worked and a vote would take place.

Not knowing how RT works or how those on the top table get to be Chair and Vice Chair, But a good guess would be...no one else wants to be put forward, Or those who are in place of influence have a magic tongue to convince members they are the person to carry on with their work...in essence it's down to the members to challenge and put themselves forward.

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.    

[angieram]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Fair enough but Jim has asked for feedback on 'improving and membership'. That was the pitch and that's what I'm drilling down on as I think any potential subscriber needs to know that this bright, new mission statement is more than fine words. They will have my support as an organisation, but as other posters have pointed out, the reasons given for choosing not to engage before now ae not strictly true. I'll cite Ramzone and leave it there. I think it's also fair to ask how our involvement is actually going to effect change. There has to be a plan, but thus far thee seem only veiled criticisms of us for our 'lack of support' and less than helpful interaction.

I think it's entirely pertinent. BAWT has only been in existence for a month and a half. Big followings or not, RT have had over a decade to generate a significant subscription base et have failed to do so. Surely identifying why will allow them to address the issue better than not doing so.

Not entirely sure how I'm starting a competition. I'm pointing out the disparity in approach and engagement models. There are lessons to be learned which is surely the whole point of this thread. Jim stated that Twitter and FB have been the preferred models for however long the Trust has been in existence, but whatever platform an entity selects, you need to drive traffic. Mohammed and the mountain springs to mind. Jim seems to feel that many fans are hostile to the Trust. I'd venture many of us were wholly unaware of RT until recently. It's fair and helpful to look at the reasons behind that. I see no evidence that the Trust even accepts this fact, let alone has any real intent to address past mistakes. 

I agree fully. In so much, it would be helpful to know that RT's 'official place at the table' will be exploited in a meaningful manner. 

Herein lies the pinch Angie. How will our involvement effect change other than swelling RT coffers and making subscriber numbers look a tad more respectable? Surely there's some sort of strategy and if not, why not?

Me neither, but when a business is failing, where does the buck stop? And do shareholders need to know the board members to evaluate their performance? One can argue that the Trust is not a business, fair enough, but I'd argue it needs to be run like one. Frankly, this thread has only served to harden my view of the the Trust's efforts to date. 

I'll not post further on this thread in any case. I've much to say but little faith it would be seen as anything other than unhelpful, but I'll subscribe irrespective.

 

Good, and I agree about a strategy/plan. 

I think RT needs more members like you, especially if you mean to get actively involved. ?

I don't think your comments were unhelpful at all, I was just adding a different perspective. I have a bit of a thing about Twitter as I generally don't find it reflective of my views on the football or the way to approach club matters! 

[RamsfanJim]

9 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

See, herein lies my problem with you and the RT. I'd wager that prior to now, you've never once contacted David, this site's owner, to enquire as to membership numbers and / or page view stats, in order to properly evaluate the potential benefits and make an informed decision. If this is the case, can you explain exactly how you did actually go about assessing the value of this and other fans forums as platforms that might help grow your membership?    

Frankly, for all the faith that you afford 'open platforms' such as Twitter and Facebook as a means to stimulate membership numbers, it seems from the rather modest number who are already engaged with the RT, that your faith was unfounded. I don't know exactly how long the RT has existed, but irrespective, with a membership of only 1200, surely you should have been moving heaven and earth to raise your profile. Twitter indicates around 11 years which equates to growing the membership by less than 110 members per annum. That's a pretty damning indictment, however you choose to spin it.

So here it is. I'll join your club, as, most likely, will a number of other DCFC Fans Forum members and you can have you £2.00 each year despite my reservations about the RT being fit for purpose, but an open and independent poll as to the suitability of the current board needs to happen sooner rather than later. There are many reasons I could cite as to why, but I'll stick with just the one I've already highlighted for the time being.
I'm sorry Jim, but this disparity can't be explained away exclusively by your £2.00 fee. The club has @15,000 season ticket holders after all. If less than one in ten of that group sees any value in joining the RT and this despite our current predicament, then perhaps you might want to consider the Trust's performance and credibility before criticising fans for the 'lack of support they have shown'. Worldwide, I'd estimate a fanbase well in excess of 100,000. If this figure is remotely accurate, then the RT is tracking at @1% at best. In truth, that percentage is probably significantly lower. Either way, that, I'm afraid to say, is inexcusable and in my opinion, goes a long way to explaining the lack of faith many of us have in the Trust and its current board.

OK - thanks for this, useful input.

I have been in touch with David before with relation to meetings with the club, but not regards membership numbers etc. - similarly I haven't been in touch with any other forum in this respect. I'm not entirely sure it is relevant - message boards / forums are very different to supporter organisations set up to represent their members. David himself told me it is impossible to represent the views of this forum as everyone's views are different.

RamsTrust membership is on a par or higher with most Trusts at similar clubs. Some 'bigger clubs' (Man Utd etc.) obviously have many more members, and some smaller clubs where the Trust is involved in running their clubs have bigger membership (some include Trust membership in buying a season ticket). Obviously we would like membership numbers to be higher, but we have to accept that a number of supporters are never sufficiently motivated to get involved.

Trusts are largely seen as 'protest groups' and only attract interest in times of crisis for their clubs. RamsTrust itself was set up at the end of Lionel Pickering's reign when he ran out of money and the club was in crisis. Although we have continued throughout the following 19 years (doing all the things I have mentioned above), we have only attracted significant interest during times the club has been in trouble. As a result we have had limited interest in joining the Board during much of this time, and it has been left to a few of us to keep the Trust going - knowing that there would be another time we were needed (as now). 

We have never made any particular effort to increase 'followers' - that is up to each individual if they are interested in what we are doing. Obviously the Trust was set up well before Twitter or Facebook so there was never a specific policy. I don't think comparisons with BAWT or any other group is relevant - we are very different organisations with different aims. This is not a competition.

The £2 fee is to buy a share and join the Trust - we have not charged a renewal fee for many years as our costs have reduced considerably now we can communicate electronically rather than physically printing and posting updates / newsletters / AGM invitations to every member. (So it is not £2 every year).

The Trust Board is elected by the members - we have annual elections and each position is for 3 years unless they choose to step down. The 'suitability' of the Directors is therefore up to the members - and dependent on new candidates putting themselves forward to replace existing members if they re-stand. The Officials are then elected each year after the AGM by the new board. I personally have offered to stand down as chair every year - and on 2 occasions over the past 10 years or so I have been replaced, then re-elected the following year. I don't relish this - I want more people to come forward and take on responsibility (it does take a lot of my time for no reward, and generally just criciticism when people disagree).

We also can appoint a limited number of co-optees to the Board for specific skills / experience. We currently have 3 co-optees as shown on the website.

[RoyMac5]

13 hours ago, RamsfanJim said:

For example, at the last meeting we recommended that the club reopen the ticket office, send out season tickets, increase staff in the ticket office etc. (but again these may have been planned anyway). In the last mtg with Mel Morris there was a lot of discussion over whether to sign the 'trialists' (Jagielka, Morrison, Davies, Allsop, Baldock) or promote talent from the Academy. Mel seemed to be arguing it was better to use the academy, whereas the view from the reps there was that we needed more experience. I think he may have been using the group as a sounding board before making a decision. 

?

Mel knew he had a manager?

[RamsfanJim]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

The only advice I would offer to Jim and RT would be, please take care over wording of what you put out. It seems many people get their noses out of joint when they feel that you are speaking on their behalf. If all RT public communications ensure that the questions, opinions and other commentary are clearly on behalf of RT members and sympathisers, rather than having an air of speaking for all Rams supporters, I think it would go a long way to stopping bad feeling amongst general Rams fans. Even the most innocuous of comments will be objected to if it sounds like you are speaking for people who you never consulted with.

Valid point - and we are trying to address this. It is often difficult to use the correct wording during a live interview - apologies.

[RamsfanJim]

1 hour ago, ossieram said:

How many are active members?

I posted earlier about John Richardson who joined years ago. He wasn't happy with what the trust and asked for his membership to be cancelled, he was still registered as a member over 12 months later even though he hadn't paid since he originally joined.

I also see people saying people should join if they are not happy and change things from within.

Is it possible to change the trusts policies or are they written in stone for all official clubs trust groups?

It depends on you definition of 'active' - we have an email groups which contains a few hundred members, but we also email out to all members with significant updates. I am sure other follow us on Twitter / Facebook etc. and contact us when they feel the need. We get a fair number of emails in to the Trust mailbox as well.

It is possible to cancel membership but as there has been no annual renewal there are very few who have asked, so this is a manual process. 

Trust policies are largely based on model rules when we were formed, but there is provision to change them through a Special General Meeting, or (I believe) an agenda item at an AGM. There is a threshold for percentage to agree to changes. This has happened at least once to my knowledge at RamsTrust. We do need to update a number of our rules / constitution as some of it is now out-of-date (e.g. refers to Supporters Direct which has now merged into the Football Supporters Association) and there is a sub-group reviewing these now to propose revisions.

[RamsfanJim]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Jim seems to feel that many fans are hostile to the Trust. I'd venture many of us were wholly unaware of RT until recently. It's fair and helpful to look at the reasons behind that. I see no evidence that the Trust even accepts this fact, let alone has any real intent to address past mistakes. 

Herein lies the pinch Angie. How will our involvement effect change other than swelling RT coffers and making subscriber numbers look a tad more respectable? Surely there's some sort of strategy and if not, why not?

Me neither, but when a business is failing, where does the buck stop? And do shareholders need to know the board members to evaluate their performance? One can argue that the Trust is not a business, fair enough, but I'd argue it needs to be run like one. Frankly, this thread has only served to harden my view of the the Trust's efforts to date. 

I'll not post further on this thread in any case. I've much to say but little faith it would be seen as anything other than unhelpful, but I'll subscribe irrespective.

 

I don't feel many fans are hostile to the Trust - it is apparent that some are, but I feel the majority are supportive of what we are trying to achieve (even if they don't perosnally want to join). The vast majority don't read or post on message boards, they just want to support their team on a Saturday / Tuesday / Wednesday. I would like to think they appreciate what the Trust has done / is doing even if they never contribute. This is certainly the impression I get when I have spoken to other fans - the vast majority seem aware of RamsTust even if they don't know the details (admittedly this is purely based on fans who have spoken to me, which may not be indicative). 

We absolutely have a strategy, which is reviewed - but currently our focus is on the current situation at the club. Until that is resolved and longer term strategy is on hold.

The Trust is NOT a business - we are not trying to make a profit (in fact we are a not-for-profit cooperative), we are a membership organisation with aims as reported by Angie above.

[tinman]

2 hours ago, ossieram said:

How many are active members?

I posted earlier about John Richardson who joined years ago. He wasn't happy with what the trust and asked for his membership to be cancelled, he was still registered as a member over 12 months later even though he hadn't paid since he originally joined.

I also see people saying people should join if they are not happy and change things from within.

Is it possible to change the trusts policies or are they written in stone for all official clubs trust groups?

Judging by the active members mailing list and the people who co tribute to it, about 12

[GboroRam]

31 minutes ago, RamsfanJim said:

Valid point - and we are trying to address this. It is often difficult to use the correct wording during a live interview - apologies.

I think sometimes your official releases aren't as specific as perhaps they should be. I for one don't have any issue with the wording, as I usually read it with your intended slant. But some people interpret it their own way. Best to be really explicit in these things and only refer to RT members directly in your comms. Some people are looking to take offense, which you can only stop by spelling it out really clearly.

[angieram]

22 minutes ago, tinman said:

Judging by the active members mailing list and the people who co tribute to it, about 12

Are you a member, tinman? Do you contribute to it? 

I don't know as I presume tinman isn't your real name.

[tinman]

1 minute ago, angieram said:

Are you a member, tinman? Do you contribute to it? 

I don't know as I presume tinman isn't your real name.

Yes, did, found it pointless for the many reasons already given on here. 

[angieram]

16 minutes ago, tinman said:

Yes, did, found it pointless for the many reasons already given on here. 

You don't agree with RT but you're still reading all their stuff? 

I just feel a bit uncomfortable with that. 

You will probably know because I do use my real name that I have been quite active on there. 

It bothers me that it's not possible to see who else is reading that stuff and what purposes they use it for.

I agree not enough people contribute but I think it's more than the 12 you mentioned.

Edit: I have just counted in one thread, the questions for administrators, and there are 72 posts from 26 different members in that one. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by angieram
To add more information

[tinman]

19 minutes ago, angieram said:

You don't agree with Rt but you're still reading all their stuff? 

I just feel a bit uncomfortable with that. 

You will probably know because I do use my real name that I have been quite active on there. 

It bothers me that it's not possible to see who else is reading that stuff and what purposes they use it for.

I agree not enough people contribute but I think it's more than the 12 you mentioned.

As people are constantly told, “join and make a difference from the inside”

 

 your comment just smacks of the reasons why people are fed up with it. I don’t agree with a lot of how it’s run so I shouldn’t be a member nor contribute?

Edited November 1, 2021 by tinman

[Archied]

I was a member at the start and went to a meeting , I found myself very much at odds with the line taken on Pickering and the whole coop ,three amigos debacle and left , I don’t hold a grudge but found I had very different views on stuff and couldn’t be part of it , not had much interest in it over the years since then and from what I can see it’s still got the same people at the top and a very small membership ,, interesting that it seems once you’ve joined you are always counted as a member as there no renewal fee? 
is there a list of members ? 

[angieram]

3 minutes ago, tinman said:

As people are constantly told, “join and make a difference from the inside”

 

 your comment just smacks of the reasons why people are fed up with it. 

Why? If you want to see change you should be speaking up about it on there where you can make a difference, not moaning about it on here! 

[tinman]

2 minutes ago, angieram said:

Why? If you want to see change you should be speaking up about it on there where you can make a difference, not moaning about it on here! 

I have been and get hit with a wall of resistance. Much like those on here.