PlayItLivo Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 We obvs don't own the perimeter hoardings. If we can't afford a 150 inch score board then there's no way we can afford electronic hoardings running the full length and width of the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 4 minutes ago, PlayItLivo said: We obvs don't own the perimeter hoardings. If we can't afford a 150 inch score board then there's no way we can afford electronic hoardings running the full length and width of the pitch. Exactly - so what has happened to our money? Say it covered 50% of them....do we own 50% of the boards? If he has full ownership of the advertising boards then he should either refund every single fan (without putting an awkward time scale on it) or use the money for something worthwhile. Otherwise, we have effectively just given Corney £25k out of our own hard earned. I wouldn't give that man a fucking bean. The more I'm thinking about it the angrier I am getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, oafc_lover said: Exactly - so what has happened to our money? The club spends more than it earns. The money has plugged a short term gap. Or paid for a player to keep us up. Or given Clarke an extra year on that contract. It may have paid an instalment to Nercarcu. Or settled HMRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, opinions4u said: The club spends more than it earns. The money has plugged a short term gap. Or paid for a player to keep us up. Or given Clarke an extra year on that contract. It may have paid an instalment to Nercarcu. Or settled HMRC. Was more a rhetorical question o4u. We all know what's happened to the money. But is it right? Is it for us to pay his bills or his debts? Is it fuck! The guy is an absolute piece of shit. I cannot wait for the day he leaves and takes his cronies with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 No doubt they set out with the right intentions but the daft thing is if they'd just come out and said we are really up against it cash flow wise and need your help us loonies would probably have raised more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidshaw Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Ok, somewhat of a tangent but very relevant, I think, having read this and some other threads. Putting aside this fiasco for one minute, what really bothers me is the apparent gulf between the Trust and "the board" (accepting that the Trust have one seat on the board). As a newcomer to this forum it honestly appears as an "us and them". The Trust and the board should have shared aims and values for the benefit of fans and Latics generally. I have no idea how the rift has come about but it has to be repaired and quickly. It really is pointless having a Trust if it is at loggerheads with the club all the time (and a recent response that relations are rated at 3 out of 10 suggest that is the case). I`ve heard it mentioned that a 3% shareholding gives the Trust some leverage - in my experience, a 3% shareholding is hardly worth having from the viewpoint of leverage and influence. I am not criticising the Trust per se but, for now, perhaps they should concentrate solely on getting the relationship back on an even keel. That may not go down well with some but it is critical if the Trust is to achieve its wider objectives. Managing such relationships is not easy as personality and egos come into play and people can soon become entrenched in their views and develop a siege mentality. That may explain the regular flow of negative comments on here (some justified for sure, by the way). It is up to the leader of the Trust to negotiate/persuade/influence and then set the scene going forward. So, just an appeal to the Trust really - stop squabbling, clear the air with the club and fans like me might then consider joining. At present it doesn't appeal simply because my perception is that it is too negative in its approach (again, I accept I don't have intimate detail but it is a perception I have gleaned - presumably others do too?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, davidshaw said: So, just an appeal to the Trust really - stop squabbling, clear the air with the club and fans like me might then consider joining. At present it doesn't appeal simply because my perception is that it is too negative in its approach (again, I accept I don't have intimate detail but it is a perception I have gleaned - presumably others do too?) For the first time ever the Trust is gently challenging the club on things. Long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 3 hours ago, yarddog73 said: Makes you wonder why the response to the initial appeal was piss poor. For those of you who came out slating the Trust in the aftermath in defence of Corney it's bellend's like you who give this guy belief that he can behave and treat people/fans/paying customers how he wants with no repercussions, he's obviously surrounded himself with sycophants at the club but the ignorance of Corney and those around him is at times quite astounding as is the absurd way they go about dealing with problems. I can't speak for others, but I certainly wasnt 'slating' the trust as a diversion away from Corney. I was having a bit of a go (let's be honest it wasnt very harsh unless you are a delicate little snowflake) because I dont believe the trust should start or fan rumours. That will never end well and isn't helpful. Cut out the insults too tough guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, davidshaw said: Ok, somewhat of a tangent but very relevant, I think, having read this and some other threads. Putting aside this fiasco for one minute, what really bothers me is the apparent gulf between the Trust and "the board" (accepting that the Trust have one seat on the board). As a newcomer to this forum it honestly appears as an "us and them". The Trust and the board should have shared aims and values for the benefit of fans and Latics generally. I have no idea how the rift has come about but it has to be repaired and quickly. It really is pointless having a Trust if it is at loggerheads with the club all the time (and a recent response that relations are rated at 3 out of 10 suggest that is the case). I`ve heard it mentioned that a 3% shareholding gives the Trust some leverage - in my experience, a 3% shareholding is hardly worth having from the viewpoint of leverage and influence. I am not criticising the Trust per se but, for now, perhaps they should concentrate solely on getting the relationship back on an even keel. That may not go down well with some but it is critical if the Trust is to achieve its wider objectives. Managing such relationships is not easy as personality and egos come into play and people can soon become entrenched in their views and develop a siege mentality. That may explain the regular flow of negative comments on here (some justified for sure, by the way). It is up to the leader of the Trust to negotiate/persuade/influence and then set the scene going forward. So, just an appeal to the Trust really - stop squabbling, clear the air with the club and fans like me might then consider joining. At present it doesn't appeal simply because my perception is that it is too negative in its approach (again, I accept I don't have intimate detail but it is a perception I have gleaned - presumably others do too?) 100% spot on! Agree with every sentence. Conflict and a stand off serves nobody well. Edited April 14, 2017 by kowenicki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, kowenicki said: 100% spot on! Agree with every sentence. Conflict and a stand off serves nobody well. Neither did having a board member from The Trust suffering Stockholm Syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 26 minutes ago, davidshaw said: Ok, somewhat of a tangent but very relevant, I think, having read this and some other threads. Putting aside this fiasco for one minute, what really bothers me is the apparent gulf between the Trust and "the board" (accepting that the Trust have one seat on the board). As a newcomer to this forum it honestly appears as an "us and them". The Trust and the board should have shared aims and values for the benefit of fans and Latics generally. I have no idea how the rift has come about but it has to be repaired and quickly. It really is pointless having a Trust if it is at loggerheads with the club all the time (and a recent response that relations are rated at 3 out of 10 suggest that is the case). I`ve heard it mentioned that a 3% shareholding gives the Trust some leverage - in my experience, a 3% shareholding is hardly worth having from the viewpoint of leverage and influence. I am not criticising the Trust per se but, for now, perhaps they should concentrate solely on getting the relationship back on an even keel. That may not go down well with some but it is critical if the Trust is to achieve its wider objectives. Managing such relationships is not easy as personality and egos come into play and people can soon become entrenched in their views and develop a siege mentality. That may explain the regular flow of negative comments on here (some justified for sure, by the way). It is up to the leader of the Trust to negotiate/persuade/influence and then set the scene going forward. So, just an appeal to the Trust really - stop squabbling, clear the air with the club and fans like me might then consider joining. At present it doesn't appeal simply because my perception is that it is too negative in its approach (again, I accept I don't have intimate detail but it is a perception I have gleaned - presumably others do too?) Since the trust inception in 2004, we have very much the middle of club and fans and in the majority of case have erred on the side of the club ( note I said club). Sometimes we have chosen not to come out bat swinging as we have had to think about the people who work there both on and off the pitch and the negative impact it can have too. Social responsible? Okay I hold my hand up as I can cross the line sometimes. we are only volunteers and been at full board strength ourselves since June last year, so finding that life balance of work, family, footy, meetings and what we want to do, been able to do is tough. as a whole we have only come out fighting so to speak since the start of the year. The scoreboard bring the catalyst. Your trust representative who sits on the board of OAFC and has responsibilities tied to that too...in my opinion is in the firing line every time he steps foot over the threshold of the club. This is because he's doing the job you have elected him for by asking those hard questions, the finances, our future self sufficient plans. As a successful business man himself, he knows all the corporate stuff, legal knowledge, responsibilities of owning a business too...he quite handy really. can the relationship be repaired with corney? It shouldn't be personal should it....it's business, who knows? The club? Well the club we hope will survive as people, owners come and go. With the scoreboard..it's fans money, not clubs or Corneys....so we will fight the best we can to ensure the monies are there and after refunds are issued what happens next. We will have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 24 minutes ago, opinions4u said: Neither did having a board member from The Trust suffering Stockholm Syndrome. I agree. Do you agree with my (and others) point that a stand off and sniping is counter productive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruitygoo Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I'm aware not everyone who donated is a Trust member so giving the pot directly to the Trust isn't something that should happen. What should happen is all monies should be automatically refunded - it really isn't a difficult thing to do. Once done, the Trust can start their own appeal and anyone who has their money back can donate back directly to the Trust who can then poll on what to do with any cash donated..... Simple...the only explanation for this not occurring is that the pot is no longer in existence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 1 hour ago, davidshaw said: Ok, somewhat of a tangent but very relevant, I think, having read this and some other threads. Putting aside this fiasco for one minute, what really bothers me is the apparent gulf between the Trust and "the board" (accepting that the Trust have one seat on the board). As a newcomer to this forum it honestly appears as an "us and them". The Trust and the board should have shared aims and values for the benefit of fans and Latics generally. I have no idea how the rift has come about but it has to be repaired and quickly. It really is pointless having a Trust if it is at loggerheads with the club all the time (and a recent response that relations are rated at 3 out of 10 suggest that is the case). I`ve heard it mentioned that a 3% shareholding gives the Trust some leverage - in my experience, a 3% shareholding is hardly worth having from the viewpoint of leverage and influence. I am not criticising the Trust per se but, for now, perhaps they should concentrate solely on getting the relationship back on an even keel. That may not go down well with some but it is critical if the Trust is to achieve its wider objectives. Managing such relationships is not easy as personality and egos come into play and people can soon become entrenched in their views and develop a siege mentality. That may explain the regular flow of negative comments on here (some justified for sure, by the way). It is up to the leader of the Trust to negotiate/persuade/influence and then set the scene going forward. So, just an appeal to the Trust really - stop squabbling, clear the air with the club and fans like me might then consider joining. At present it doesn't appeal simply because my perception is that it is too negative in its approach (again, I accept I don't have intimate detail but it is a perception I have gleaned - presumably others do too?) I know you're trying to bring some positivity but I think you're wrong that the relationship needs to be repaired to achieve the Trust's objectives. The main objective is to look after the future of the club where possible. One of the ways of doing this is asking awkward questions of the chairman when we feel something isn't right. If the relationship breaks down due to him or other directors throwing their weight around then so be it. As underdog has already said - there are times where we haven't said anything because we felt it was either under control or it could be sorted pretty quickly. We've been criticised for being quiet in the past and that's fine, we can take that as we know that we have the best interests of the club at heart. We didn't want to cause a divide amongst fans to the detriment of the club but we've always had a close eye on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 48 minutes ago, Fruitygoo said: I'm aware not everyone who donated is a Trust member so giving the pot directly to the Trust isn't something that should happen. What should happen is all monies should be automatically refunded - it really isn't a difficult thing to do. Once done, the Trust can start their own appeal and anyone who has their money back can donate back directly to the Trust who can then poll on what to do with any cash donated..... Simple...the only explanation for this not occurring is that the pot is no longer in existence My personal view on this is that anyone who either wants their money back as they won't get a scoreboard or doesn't want the Trust to do something with it should have a reasonable amount of time to request money back and then the remainder passed to the Trust. The Trust directors, members and other supporters put a lot of work into keeping the fund raising going while looking at options for what could have been installed for various targets. We could then find out what the fans want to do with it (with proper involvement and input from them) and get something that us fans could be proud of for our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bozman Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 2 hours ago, davidshaw said: Ok, somewhat of a tangent but very relevant, I think, having read this and some other threads. Putting aside this fiasco for one minute, what really bothers me is the apparent gulf between the Trust and "the board" (accepting that the Trust have one seat on the board). As a newcomer to this forum it honestly appears as an "us and them". The Trust and the board should have shared aims and values for the benefit of fans and Latics generally. I have no idea how the rift has come about but it has to be repaired and quickly. It really is pointless having a Trust if it is at loggerheads with the club all the time (and a recent response that relations are rated at 3 out of 10 suggest that is the case). I`ve heard it mentioned that a 3% shareholding gives the Trust some leverage - in my experience, a 3% shareholding is hardly worth having from the viewpoint of leverage and influence. I am not criticising the Trust per se but, for now, perhaps they should concentrate solely on getting the relationship back on an even keel. That may not go down well with some but it is critical if the Trust is to achieve its wider objectives. Managing such relationships is not easy as personality and egos come into play and people can soon become entrenched in their views and develop a siege mentality. That may explain the regular flow of negative comments on here (some justified for sure, by the way). It is up to the leader of the Trust to negotiate/persuade/influence and then set the scene going forward. So, just an appeal to the Trust really - stop squabbling, clear the air with the club and fans like me might then consider joining. At present it doesn't appeal simply because my perception is that it is too negative in its approach (again, I accept I don't have intimate detail but it is a perception I have gleaned - presumably others do too?) We'd all love there to be an excellent relationship between club and trust all the time, but I don't think the trust are engaged in petty squabbling here. For years on end, under the previous regime, they were widely criticised for never questioning the club's actions and not being an effective voice for the fans. It seems that all they have done is ask some very pertinent questions of the club, and received some confusing answers. I don't think they should stop asking questions about such significant issues just because the club are uncomfortable with being held to account on such matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) Again. Nobody is saying the trust members should stop asking awkward questions. Just saying that if you don't get answers then keep asking and report back to the fans when the answers aren't forthcoming. Do not get the hump and start guessing, speculating and starting or supporting rumours. Leave that to others. Keep the high ground and don't become what some posters (non trust members) here are. That is sensible surely. Edited April 14, 2017 by kowenicki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 29 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Again. Nobody is saying the trust members should stop asking awkward questions. Just saying that if you don't get answers then keep asking and report back to the fans when the answers aren't forthcoming. Isn't that what the Trust did with regards to the scoreboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Just now, yarddog73 said: Isn't that what the Trust did with regards to the scoreboard? Possibly, cant remember. Its not what they did with regard to bailiffs, mowers, the WUP and other matters. Look pal, you think Corney is always wrong and the Trust is always golden. I see things differently, if you saw my posts from yesterday you will see I am happy to criticise the club and Corney, but I wont be so polarised as you because its not helpful. I'd rather deal with what we know than speculate and think the worse every single time. Spoiler Go on... throw an insult now. its what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 1 minute ago, kowenicki said: Possibly, cant remember. Its not what they did with regard to bailiffs, mowers, the WUP and other matters. Look pal, you think Corney is always wrong and the Trust is always golden. I see things differently, if you saw my posts from yesterday you will see I am happy to criticise the club and Corney, but I wont be so polarised as you because its not helpful. I'd rather deal with what we know than speculate and think the worse every single time. Reveal hidden contents Go on... throw an insult now. its what you do. I've not been the Trusts biggest fan to be fair but on this occasion I do have some sympathy with them, your final point is a good one though and a lot of the rumour and speculation could be put to bed if the club came across in a more transparent and honest way, at the end of the day we are all in this together through thick and thin so why is there a need for the cloak and dagger approach to everything, if fans were made aware issues like WUP's for X amount of we may be able to do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: I've not been the Trusts biggest fan to be fair but on this occasion I do have some sympathy with them, your final point is a good one though and a lot of the rumour and speculation could be put to bed if the club came across in a more transparent and honest way, at the end of the day we are all in this together through thick and thin so why is there a need for the cloak and dagger approach to everything, if fans were made aware issues like WUP's for X amount of we may be able to do something about it. we agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 3 hours ago, kowenicki said: I agree. Do you agree with my (and others) point that a stand off and sniping is counter productive? Oh yes. A director not responding to a perfectly reasonable request for information from another director is very childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, opinions4u said: Oh yes. A director not responding to a perfectly reasonable request for information from another director is very childish. Yep...(albeit a non controlling director of minority (tiny) holding asking a controlling director with a majority holding) ...and a trust member starting rumours, encouraging rumours, making jokes about the clubs precarious position and acting like a second rate comedian is also childish. we agree. Edited April 14, 2017 by kowenicki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 11 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Yep...(albeit a non controlling director of minority (tiny) holding asking a controlling director with a majority holding) Does that mean Barry, Hilly and Gee have even less rights to ask questions given that they don't own any shares at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 1 minute ago, opinions4u said: Does that mean Barry, Hilly and Gee have even less rights to ask questions given that they don't own any shares at all? Did I say they cant ask questions? No. People on here love changing the argument or putting words in others mouths don't they. But yes, those questions could be ignored. Such is life. No point denying it. In truth, in most matters, Corney can do what the feck he likes. People understand this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts