Supporters’ Board

[Dcfc_Sterling]

49 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

It talks of lack of accountability and limited transparency due to the NDAs, that's just bizarre. The very creation of a shadow board is a demonstration of accountability and transparency and should be cherished. An NDA is perfectly normal, what do they expect? A free for all, you want to share the detail behind the published accounts, go for it!

This sort of cosy club was installed under the previous regime, without mentioning names/groups, info such as missed payments to HMRC was held by a representative from a group 6 months prior to alarm bells started ringing. As good as it sounds in writing there’s many factors that need considering and if the club must press ahead with the SB then the fan base needs to be consulted(not just a select few and RT solely only ones responding) and a democratic election needs to be held so the fans have a say who’s representing them on the SB. 

[Day]

1 hour ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

This sort of cosy club was installed under the previous regime, without mentioning names/groups, info such as missed payments to HMRC was held by a representative from a group 6 months prior to alarm bells started ringing. As good as it sounds in writing there’s many factors that need considering and if the club must press ahead with the SB then the fan base needs to be consulted(not just a select few and RT solely only ones responding) and a democratic election needs to be held so the fans have a say who’s representing them on the SB. 

As someone that was part of this "cosy club" as you call it, missed payments to HMRC were never revealed in the meetings I or anyone from this forum attended.

Be interesting to know how, when and to who you believe sat on that.

Regardless of how board members are elected, they don't represent me will be a common cry.

So much animosity aimed towards those involved, I'm not sure why anyone would want a seat.

Even calling it the Cosy Club is a subtle dig, why is that necessary, these are fellow fans that have done nothing to deserve that kind of s****.

These meetings are an EFL requirement now, it would be simply impossible to hold them with 30,000 fans in the stadium.

Those that were chosen to form the Supporters Charter Group had platforms/groups in which they could give feedback and provide information to.

Some of those like the Punjabi Rams for example do great work in the community.

Anyhow, this platform is no longer in the SCG, left following the NDA meeting, so all these feedback would be better fed back through groups that are still in there, let them know your concerns, although I would drop those subtle digs if you want to get anywhere with them.

[Dcfc_Sterling]

21 minutes ago, David said:

As someone that was part of this "cosy club" as you call it, missed payments to HMRC were never revealed in the meetings I or anyone from this forum attended.

Be interesting to know how, when and to who you believe sat on that.

Regardless of how board members are elected, they don't represent me will be a common cry.

So much animosity aimed towards those involved, I'm not sure why anyone would want a seat.

Even calling it the Cosy Club is a subtle dig, why is that necessary, these are fellow fans that have done nothing to deserve that kind of s****.

These meetings are an EFL requirement now, it would be simply impossible to hold them with 30,000 fans in the stadium.

Those that were chosen to form the Supporters Charter Group had platforms/groups in which they could give feedback and provide information to.

Some of those like the Punjabi Rams for example do great work in the community.

Anyhow, this platform is no longer in the SCG, left following the NDA meeting, so all these feedback would be better fed back through groups that are still in there, let them know your concerns, although I would drop those subtle digs if you want to get anywhere with them.

Cosy Club isn’t a subtle dig, it’s pretty much what they are and if that offends you, I can only apologise.

the SB would be subject to NDA, I’d rather have representatives that are elected by the fans who they’ll vote in confidence in, not those that are automatically elected with no mandate and as I’ve already previously stated, the SB at the moment only covers what effectively is the Golden Share, just give RT that until there’s a regulator set up for the SB to report to, atm the SB are powerless and it could be months if not years. 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Dcfc_Sterling

[Day]

1 minute ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

Cosy Club isn’t a subtle dig, it’s pretty much what they are and if that offends you, I can only apologise.

the SB would be subject to NDA, I’d rather have representatives that are elected by the fans who they’ll vote in confidence in, not those that are automatically elected with no mandate and as I’ve already previously stated, the SB at the moment only covers what effectively is the Golden Share, just give them that until there’s a regulator set up for the SB to report to, atm the SB are powerless and it could be months if not years. 

 

It's a dig, doesn't offend me, just find it pathetic and unnecessary.

The irony is, you're using this platform now to voice your opinions, a platform that was in the supporters charter group to give it its correct name that you're taking swings at.

Comes across as a bit whiny and personal, especially with the accusations you made earlier not wishing to reveal the identity.

I actually have no problem with what you are suggesting away from the digs, it's just that by going on the attack, kinda devalues what you're trying to push forward here to anyone potentially reading that has the power to put your concerns forward to the club.

Shadow Board is something completely different to the SCG that's in place now, I don't believe any group should automatically be awarded a seat.

Nothing personal to any group on the SCG. 

[LeedsCityRam]

Like a few others on here, I’m confused why anyone wouldn’t want a Supporters Board.

BAWT have been open about opposing the Supporters Board & I’d be interested to know exactly why that is – seems like they’re trying to deny Derby fans the right to representation. Furthermore, I’m extremely sceptical that any poll run by BAWT would be the right & proper channel to express fan views given that a) any fan can vote on a Twitter/X poll – including presumably Forest fans & b) as BAWT are opposed to the SB, the possibility of gerrymandering results can’t be discounted.

Attempts to canvas fan views should be conducted without slanted questions & divisive rhetoric on social media – the club did this exercise correctly in July by communicating the proposed structure & inviting questions & comments from all fans. Interesting also that we have a couple of new members on this thread expressing the BAWT view – strikes me as a propaganda exercise from that particular group.

As to the general principle of the Supporters Board, some of the proposed powers of the SB would have stopped the excesses of the Morris regime – specifically stopping the sale of Pride Park & having access to the accounts. These strike me as sensible & the fact the club are interested in moving forward with this should reassure those who are on the fence.

[Gaspode]

15 hours ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

Paul McCarthy has been driving this as a paid consultant for PR and crisis management alongside the FSA who disagreed with holding a democratic election with the fan base!

I wondered what's he's been up to since his voice went....

[Dcfc_Sterling]

1 hour ago, David said:

It's a dig, doesn't offend me, just find it pathetic and unnecessary.

The irony is, you're using this platform now to voice your opinions, a platform that was in the supporters charter group to give it its correct name that you're taking swings at.

Comes across as a bit whiny and personal, especially with the accusations you made earlier not wishing to reveal the identity.

I actually have no problem with what you are suggesting away from the digs, it's just that by going on the attack, kinda devalues what you're trying to push forward here to anyone potentially reading that has the power to put your concerns forward to the club.

Shadow Board is something completely different to the SCG that's in place now, I don't believe any group should automatically be awarded a seat.

Nothing personal to any group on the SCG. 

I’ve got no issues with the SCG, the point of this post was to have fans vote their opinion the poll created by BAWT. 
 

furthermore, I gave my opinion on the SB idea and how, in my opinion, is effectively another cosy club we saw under MM regime that right now, the club doesn’t need. This doesn’t scrutinise the previous members of the scg or current, as soon as NDAs came out that’s when it became a s**t show.

[Dcfc_Sterling]

13 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Like a few others on here, I’m confused why anyone wouldn’t want a Supporters Board.

BAWT have been open about opposing the Supporters Board & I’d be interested to know exactly why that is – seems like they’re trying to deny Derby fans the right to representation. Furthermore, I’m extremely sceptical that any poll run by BAWT would be the right & proper channel to express fan views given that a) any fan can vote on a Twitter/X poll – including presumably Forest fans & b) as BAWT are opposed to the SB, the possibility of gerrymandering results can’t be discounted.

Attempts to canvas fan views should be conducted without slanted questions & divisive rhetoric on social media – the club did this exercise correctly in July by communicating the proposed structure & inviting questions & comments from all fans. Interesting also that we have a couple of new members on this thread expressing the BAWT view – strikes me as a propaganda exercise from that particular group.

As to the general principle of the Supporters Board, some of the proposed powers of the SB would have stopped the excesses of the Morris regime – specifically stopping the sale of Pride Park & having access to the accounts. These strike me as sensible & the fact the club are interested in moving forward with this should reassure those who are on the fence.

From what I’ve heard, you can easily say the same for how the supposed “fan consultation” that happened in July was subject to only RamsTrust members. it’s quite interesting after RamsTrust secretary commented about how 60k fans were consulted, then changed to 26k and only 30-40 (can’t remember the exact figure) responded. I had seen that RamsTrust had circulated the email they received around its members so I think fans who are not in RamsTrust have every right to be sceptical of how the “process of consultation” was done when you only need to read comments made by Derby fans on social media and also use the poll as good idea of how fans would like to be consulted or simply oppose the idea.  

[LeedsCityRam]

15 minutes ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

From what I’ve heard, you can easily say the same for how the supposed “fan consultation” that happened in July was subject to only RamsTrust members. it’s quite interesting after RamsTrust secretary commented about how 60k fans were consulted, then changed to 26k and only 30-40 (can’t remember the exact figure) responded. I had seen that RamsTrust had circulated the email they received around its members so I think fans who are not in RamsTrust have every right to be sceptical of how the “process of consultation” was done when you only need to read comments made by Derby fans on social media and also use the poll as good idea of how fans would like to be consulted or simply oppose the idea.  

The club made a communication to all fans inviting views on the Supporters Board & provided a framework for how it might look - this was on their main website (link below) & social media channels in July. Where have you got the idea that only RamsTrust members were consulted? That's totally incorrect.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2023/07/proposal-for-derby-county-supporters-boardsupporters-charter-group

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by LeedsCityRam

[Day]

5 minutes ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

I’ve got no issues with the SCG, the point of this post was to have fans vote their opinion the poll created by BAWT. 
 

furthermore, I gave my opinion on the SB idea and how, in my opinion, is effectively another cosy club we saw under MM regime that right now, the club doesn’t need. This doesn’t scrutinise the previous members of the scg or current, as soon as NDAs came out that’s when it became a s**t show.

There was only ever one NDA whilst this forum was on the board signed, I resigned within 48 hours of that meeting. I'm not sure what the situation is now. But yeah, that meeting was a s*** show I agree. 

NDA's should not have been necessary for the aims of the SCG, however with a SB, NDA's will be inevitable and understandable due to the positions they will hold.

I know you will disagree with that, however as you said earlier, you want to have confidence in those elected to the board. That must come with a level of trust surely?

You have to expect that there will be sensitive information shared to help the SB understand the clubs position on certain matters, you will face a losing battle in terms of full transparency, it's just how it is. 

This is why that democratic vote is needed, to ensure there is that level of trust in the board once setup as clearly there is not that level of trust in the current SCG. 

 

[Alty_Ram]

I have to admit to being a bit baffled by the strength of feeling and negativity towards this. There is a clearly a load of baggage around this whole issue that I am not really understanding despite reading the objections, but I would have thought that if it is an option for some level of fan representation in whatever form, then that is better than no representation ?

I don't have a clue who is the best person to represent fans in this scenario other than certainly not me, because I don't frankly understand enough of what is required. I feel reasonably sure though that any fans group is made up of people who are surely by definition, fans and followers of our great club. When the ball hits the net and I leap about and celebrate with complete strangers, I'm not asking for their membership cards to see if they might be celebrating for questionable reasons or because of some sinister agenda that will only become clear when they revert to their evil alien lizard form. I just don't know what folk think is going to happen.

[Dcfc_Sterling]

25 minutes ago, David said:

There was only ever one NDA whilst this forum was on the board signed, I resigned within 48 hours of that meeting. I'm not sure what the situation is now. But yeah, that meeting was a s*** show I agree. 

NDA's should not have been necessary for the aims of the SCG, however with a SB, NDA's will be inevitable and understandable due to the positions they will hold.

I know you will disagree with that, however as you said earlier, you want to have confidence in those elected to the board. That must come with a level of trust surely?

You have to expect that there will be sensitive information shared to help the SB understand the clubs position on certain matters, you will face a losing battle in terms of full transparency, it's just how it is. 

This is why that democratic vote is needed, to ensure there is that level of trust in the board once setup as clearly there is not that level of trust in the current SCG. 

 

No I agree there will be NDAs on certain topics within the SB, but I don’t agree with unelected individuals being granted positions that the wider fan base haven’t voted for on the SB. 
 

this is why if the club just press ahead with the idea then as you’ve mentioned a democratic vote needs to happen and no one should be guaranteed a seat! 

[Dcfc_Sterling]

31 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

The club made a communication to all fans inviting views on the Supporters Board & provided a framework for how it might look - this was on their main website (link below) & social media channels in July. Where have you got the idea that only RamsTrust members were consulted? That's totally incorrect.

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2023/07/proposal-for-derby-county-supporters-boardsupporters-charter-group

 

Being part of the RamsTrust emails, I had only seen an email that was shared by a member to whole group and was supposedly sent to 26k fans asking for their view, only 40 responses, clearly not an appetite for it or only certain fans received the email?  

[Dcfc_Sterling]

1 hour ago, LeedsCityRam said:

Attempts to canvas fan views should be conducted without slanted questions & divisive rhetoric on social media – the club did this exercise correctly in July by communicating the proposed structure & inviting questions & comments from all fans. Interesting also that we have a couple of new members on this thread expressing the BAWT view – strikes me as a propaganda exercise from that particular group.

 

Sorry to add, I’ve been a member since 2011, I’ve not seen any new accounts or of that nature expressing BAWT’s views? 

[angieram]

Firstly, I will declare an interest in this topic, as most regular posters will know, I am secretary of RamsTrust, a fact I've never hidden and have often chatted about on here. I don't post anonymously anywhere.

I did say the Club had sent out 60,000 emails on X - this was the figure given to us before the consultation. Last week the Club said 26,000 at a meeting which I wasn't at , so I said sorry to Mike, who was there and had corrected me. That's still a lot of Derby fans. However, it was also posted on X Twitter to DCFC's 398,000 followers and this was followed up with a reminder during the consultation period.

Each fan group (and indeed individual) on the SCG was asked to communicate with their "constituencies" about the consultation so naturally RamsTrust emailed ALL our members about it and added it to our website, which can be viewed by anyone, not just members and we tweeted about it. 

I also posted in here about it at the time. 

I don't know what other groups did, because I'm not responsible for them. 

All I would ask of anyone is that they read what was written on the DCFC website at the time, and the FAQs, before making their minds up. It's still there:

https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2023/07/proposal-for-derby-county-supporters-boardsupporters-charter-group

[Nuwtfly]

BAWT will be against the supporters board until a majority of its members (founders) are invited to be on it.

Then it'll be the best thing since sliced bread.

[Dcfc_Sterling]

13 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

BAWT will be against the supporters board until a majority of its members (founders) are invited to be on it.

Then it'll be the best thing since sliced bread.

I can correct you on that one, that they have always insisted if one of their members wanted to stand for election to the SB they would have to leave BAWT. 

[Nuwtfly]

4 minutes ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

I can correct you on that one, that they have always insisted if one of their members wanted to stand for election to the SB they would have to leave BAWT. 

They said a lot of things when they first formed, mate. They were a really promising group at a time where fans needed representation and a voice. But what happened? Loads of its founders left pretty swiftly. One cosied up to Kirchner. What's their purpose now? 

[Dcfc_Sterling]

3 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

They said a lot of things when they first formed, mate. They were a really promising group at a time where fans needed representation and a voice. But what happened? Loads of its founders left pretty swiftly. One cosied up to Kirchner. What's their purpose now? 

The “cosying upto Kirchner” is an interesting one and I think the main point of that exercise is sometimes massively missed. the objectives of BAWT wasn’t to solely represent the fan base and since the NDA fiasco the main aim was to get information out to the fans. 
 

I know different members during admin would personally build relationships with potential bidders(Binnie’s, AA, Scottish brothers, DC etc) , the admins and people close to the club in order to get the information and verify it and get it out to the fans. they would also work with high profile journalists to get info verified or help build a story against CK, Quantuma etc. 
 

During that time one of its members built a good relationship with Kirchner and arguably could say they got too close to him but it was all for the fans benefit to get info out there. I don’t know all the full details of that relationship, but I know once things reached a boiling point the individual was asked to leave BAWT. 
 

From what I understand, BAWT has no appetite to be on the board as they’ve always stated since the first idea was mentioned at the start of the year and if any of its members want to be on it they would have to leave BAWT. They would prefer the club to hold a democratic election as opposed to offering automatic seats to the current SCG members. 

[TuffLuff]