Supporters’ Board

[Ian Buxton's Bat]

I think there is an element of Peoples Front of Judea vs Judean Peoples Front type squabbling here which is a disappointing when we're being offered fan voices at a reasonable level within the club structure (Life of Brian for younger members).

I did ask a question re governance when the initial announcement was made regarding the 6 person board.

My query was related to the fact that there were 3 seats available to existing supporters groups and my understanding is that they have been voted into those positions in those respective groups (please correct me if I'm wrong). However the 3 independent members have to apply and go through an interview process.

I asked if the proposed members from existing supporters groups would have to go through an interview process so that there was not a mixed bag of appointees and elected members - and I was assured that all 6 members would have to demonstrate the necessary skills and experience to carry out the role.

I actually found this reassuring in that we will have a board of competent people and not Screaming Lord Sutch / Boaty McBoatface style 'democracy'.

But......if we have a supporters board entirely made up elected people I'd be much happier than no supporters board.

FWIW I don't have any links with any supporters groups - I'm merely an attend the games fan - but I have been impressed with the Chair of Rams trust when she's been on Radio Derby and one of the podcasts recently.

[Dcfc_Sterling]

3 hours ago, angieram said:

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.

 

Genuine question, does 40 responses which 16 or 18 were positive from a post to 398k followers give the SB mandate? 

[roboto]

2 hours ago, Ian Buxton's Bat said:

I actually found this reassuring in that we will have a board of competent people and not Screaming Lord Sutch / Boaty McBoatface style 'democracy'.

Boo! Board out! If we can't vote for them, can we have Count Binface instead?

[Red Ram]

16 hours ago, Dcfc_Sterling said:

Genuine question, does 40 responses which 16 or 18 were positive from a post to 398k followers give the SB mandate? 

Do the 7 responses against the proposal demonstrate ‘overwhelming opposition’ to the SB?

[SSD]

In a world where accountability is lacking greatly, a supporters board is a brilliant idea. A football club is not a typical business, it is a community. A community which gives great happiness to people in the local area and outside of our city. I am baffled why a certain group of supporters would be against this. The more variety of opinions the better.

After what has happened over the previous years to our club and what is currently happening now to other long established teams, the role of the supporter is more important now than it has ever been. Transparency is so precious and we should take advantage of this opportunity.

[YorkshireRam]

On 03/10/2023 at 13:11, angieram said:

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

It looks like the 'take a loan out' PR disaster is playing a big part here, what was the thinking behind that whole fiasco? I don't hear about RamsTrust all that often but there was a period of a few months where there seemed to be a series of poorly thought-out statements/decisions, I'll admit to that instantly coming to mind now when RamsTrust is mentioned.

It doesn't seem many are opposed to the concept; the opposition from what I've just been reading, seems entirely aimed at not wanting this dominated by those that were involved in the above. I think that's understandable to be fair, so maybe clarifying some of the above again may allay some supporters worries? (fwiw i'm ambivalent about this whole thing but just had a read on twitter and the above seemed to stand out)

[Leeds Ram]

I'm all for more scrutiny and accountability. There should have been much more scrutiny on Morris before everything went belly up. That's not just the fault of those prominent in the DCFC supporter community or fan groups, but to an extent, all of us as well. Clowes is obviously a massive fan and he'll be a responsible owner but putting these structures in place will provide security and accountability for the club post Clowes too. I've got no idea why anyone would be against it tbh.

[Tombo]

From what I understand, the main objection is that established fan groups who were (rightly or wrongly) deemed to not have "put a stop" to Mel Morris would be on the SB, along with 3 unelected independent members.

I think it comes down to a belief that these people were easily led by the previous ownership, and the belief that a selection process for the independents does nothing to stop this happening. Particularly if a member of the actualbboard, a member of FSA who probably knows little about our club, and a politician or local figure with their own agenda, is doing the selecting.

I think it is important people understand that this is the main point of the opposition. We need to understand that if we are to agree on anything.

Now. The next question is what is the alternative that will settle these fears?

Any suggestions?

 

(FWIW I am in support of the SB as it currently is suggested. Though the concerns raised are relatively valid)

[Dcfc_Sterling]

13 hours ago, Red Ram said:

Do the 7 responses against the proposal demonstrate ‘overwhelming opposition’ to the SB?

All that tells me is 0.03% were in favour out of the supposedly “6k opened emails”

[Dcfc_Sterling]

8 hours ago, SSD said:

In a world where accountability is lacking greatly, a supporters board is a brilliant idea. A football club is not a typical business, it is a community. A community which gives great happiness to people in the local area and outside of our city. I am baffled why a certain group of supporters would be against this. The more variety of opinions the better.

After what has happened over the previous years to our club and what is currently happening now to other long established teams, the role of the supporter is more important now than it has ever been. Transparency is so precious and we should take advantage of this opportunity.

That’s great and everything but who are they going to report to when there’s no regulator in place and also under NDA? 
 

Their next door neighbours cat?