Jump to content

The Trust - first engagement with AL


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

Bear in mind there is a fans bar at the moment (even though it's a bit shit).

I went in there before the last game and I’d say there were only 50-60 present and nobody was being turned away, so you could say we don’t need a bigger space... but then I remember how busy the Clayton Arms used to get on a match day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

1. It stands to reason that a full on, heavily publicised, OEC supporter boycott will apply some pressure. How much, is debatable. I want the Trust to investigate the pros/cons and tell us....

 

2. 'Everybody' being Abdallah and Blitz? Because we - the supporters - shouldn't be happy with the facilities we have..... there are some poxy, sh1thouse clubs in League One/Two & the Conference, with better supporter facilities that we have.

 

3. That's not the point I'm making..... but how can attractive facilities that positive contribute to the club, not be an incentive to come...?

Is there much scope for a boycott? Most people know the ownership setup and either aren't bothered or accept it for what it is.

 

Facilities aren't the best but there's virtually no scope to do anything with the main stand or Chaddy and the North Stand won't be changing hands any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ghostofcecere said:

I went in there before the last game and I’d say there were only 50-60 present and nobody was being turned away, so you could say we don’t need a bigger space... but then I remember how busy the Clayton Arms used to get on a match day

 

The drinks offerings are lacking too. Provide a decent space with decent drinks and we'd have loads in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

Is there much scope for a boycott? Most people know the ownership setup and either aren't bothered or accept it for what it is.

 

Facilities aren't the best but there's virtually no scope to do anything with the main stand or Chaddy and the North Stand won't be changing hands any time soon.

 

I dunno. I'd like the Trust to work it through and let us know......

 

People might know about ownership.... but I'd say there is widespread confusion about how who earns what in which circumstance. Clarity on the matter would be very helpful.....

Edited by lookersstandandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

I dunno. I'd like the Trust to work it through and let us know......

 

People might know about ownership.... but I'd say there is widespread confusion about how who earns what is which circumstance. Clarity on the matter would be very helpful.....

Hearing from Diane Mellor at all might be a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ghostofcecere said:

I went in there before the last game and I’d say there were only 50-60 present and nobody was being turned away, so you could say we don’t need a bigger space... but then I remember how busy the Clayton Arms used to get on a match day

Its not mobility friendly....were they showing matches pre-post match? Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, archiecat said:

Who?

Diane Mellor is your Trust representative who has been nominated to be on the board of OAFC 2004 at the AGM.

 

She has passed fit and proper persons tests to be a legal board director of the business but has put on hold taking the position up for the time being. No conspiracies here, just waiting for Al to announce his other board members. Al knows this but recognises her as the Trust rep and dialogue continues between them

Edited by underdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, underdog said:

Diane Mellor is your Trust representative who has been nominated to be on the board of OAFC 2004 at the AGM.

 

She has passed fit and proper persons tests to be a legal board director of the business but has put on hold taking the position up for the time being. No conspiracies here, just waiting for Al to announce his other board members. Al knows this but recognises her as the Trust rep and dialogue continues between them

As you know I am a great believer in what the Trust it trying to achieve. A point I raised in the survey was a lack of communication to its members. This is a typical example. The excuse that there is nothing coming out of the Club does not hold on this occasion. We could have been informed earlier

I honestly believed that the Trust had ceased to exist as there had been no feedback at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, underdog said:

 

1 hour ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

The drinks offerings are lacking too. Provide a decent space with decent drinks and we'd have loads in.

Agreed. Also we talk often on here about the atmosphere at home games, I can’t help thinking people used to have a few pints in the Clayton Arms pre-match which helped make people more inclined to sing☺️ Nothing to back this up with, but I think with the closing of that place people just rock up to BP from home largely sober.

26 minutes ago, underdog said:

Its not mobility friendly....were they showing matches pre-post match? Cheers

It certainly isn’t mobility friendly. I was chatting away to my mates about Fulham arrangements, but I do recall seeing Jeff Stelling in a screen, not sure if the actual game was televised though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, underdog said:

Diane Mellor is your Trust representative who has been nominated to be on the board of OAFC 2004 at the AGM.

 

She has passed fit and proper persons tests to be a legal board director of the business but has put on hold taking the position up for the time being. No conspiracies here, just waiting for Al to announce his other board members. Al knows this but recognises her as the Trust rep and dialogue continues between them

I was going to say, what board!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ghostofcecere said:

I was going to say, what board!!

Exactly,  in my opinion, reason enough not to accept it yet.

 

Personally, I would want to see more business people on the board first to help with all aspects of our club.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, another fan said:

As you know I am a great believer in what the Trust it trying to achieve. A point I raised in the survey was a lack of communication to its members. This is a typical example. The excuse that there is nothing coming out of the Club does not hold on this occasion. We could have been informed earlier

I honestly believed that the Trust had ceased to exist as there had been no feedback at all

 

35 minutes ago, underdog said:

Diane Mellor is your Trust representative who has been nominated to be on the board of OAFC 2004 at the AGM.

 

She has passed fit and proper persons tests to be a legal board director of the business but has put on hold taking the position up for the time being. No conspiracies here, just waiting for Al to announce his other board members. Al knows this but recognises her as the Trust rep and dialogue continues between them

I've got nothing to do with the Trust, but I knew Diane Mellor was the official representative of the Trust to the club's board. 

 

However, I didn't know she hadn't actually taken up post, despite her role being announced in the summer, when Simon Brooke stepped down due to a conflict of interests (he was a club employee at the time). 

 

I can fully appreciate that she is effectively in post, but for her not to actually be in post 6 months later, exemplifies one of the issues with the Trust. There is no point in paying £300k or whatever it was to have a seat on the board if:

The first Trust representative lets Brassbank take control of the club's assets without a buy your leave token public complaint. Then becomes acting CEO of the club (see the point above and below about Mr Brooke). 

 

The second representative becomes a club employee for a period before he properly steps down from the role and doesn't last much longer as a club employee after stepping down from his role on the board. 

 

The third Trust representative, who has been on its board since the beginning (didn't the Trust fail to submit its accounts properly once or twice) not actually take up the role for 6 months because the new owner hasn't held a board meeting in that time. Is very worrying. 

 

The Trust needs to seriously audit the original decision and any other money it has pumped into the club since. That has nothing to do with the ACV, which was quite clearly the correct decision, but paying money to have a seat on the board when there is no board is frankly stupid. 

 

The people connected with the Trust all work hard in a purely voluntary capacity (although certain former senior members didn't). But perhaps the focus should be on other things. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rudemedic said:

 

I've got nothing to do with the Trust, but I knew Diane Mellor was the official representative of the Trust to the club's board. 

 

However, I didn't know she hadn't actually taken up post, despite her role being announced in the summer, when Simon Brooke stepped down due to a conflict of interests (he was a club employee at the time). 

 

I can fully appreciate that she is effectively in post, but for her not to actually be in post 6 months later, exemplifies one of the issues with the Trust. There is no point in paying £300k or whatever it was to have a seat on the board if:

The first Trust representative lets Brassbank take control of the club's assets without a buy your leave token public complaint. Then becomes acting CEO of the club (see the point above and below about Mr Brooke). 

 

The second representative becomes a club employee for a period before he properly steps down from the role and doesn't last much longer as a club employee after stepping down from his role on the board. 

 

The third Trust representative, who has been on its board since the beginning (didn't the Trust fail to submit its accounts properly once or twice) not actually take up the role for 6 months because the new owner hasn't held a board meeting in that time. Is very worrying. 

 

The Trust needs to seriously audit the original decision and any other money it has pumped into the club since. That has nothing to do with the ACV, which was quite clearly the correct decision, but paying money to have a seat on the board when there is no board is frankly stupid. 

 

The people connected with the Trust all work hard in a purely voluntary capacity (although certain former senior members didn't). But perhaps the focus should be on other things. 

I’ve said time and time again the trust needs to be ripped apart (structure wise) and started again. The trust has become stale and needs a new direction. Seems very much an exclusive group with very little information coming out to its members and fellow Oldham fans. I know a few have offered to assist before but nothing seems to come of it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rudemedic said:

The third Trust representative, who has been on its board since the beginning (didn't the Trust fail to submit its accounts properly once or twice) not actually take up the role for 6 months because the new owner hasn't held a board meeting in that time. Is very worrying. 

 

The Trust needs to seriously audit the original decision and any other money it has pumped into the club since. That has nothing to do with the ACV, which was quite clearly the correct decision, but paying money to have a seat on the board when there is no board is frankly stupid. 

Hi Rude... I am unsure of the Trust accounts pre my time and I have been on board for the last 4yrs now. But our Accounts are up to date and have been submitted in a timely manner every year to companies house. No trust monies have been given/gifted to the club for quite a few years now. Think it might have been before my time even then. It might have been a mini-bus for the youth team or a tractor., but it would be in the accounts at the time. If you mean clubs accounts, I must admit I haven't checked myself when they were last submitted but I think they are overdue.

 

You have summarised the Rep role V current board set up correctly and its an on going concern of ours as I believe there are rules/legalities/ with regards to businesses and regular board meetings. We have given the owner rightly/wrongly a period of time to sort thongs out, we are now approaching his first 1 year in charge and our attitude to softly, softly will be changing, it has too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rudemedic said:

 

I've got nothing to do with the Trust, but I knew Diane Mellor was the official representative of the Trust to the club's board. 

 

However, I didn't know she hadn't actually taken up post, despite her role being announced in the summer, when Simon Brooke stepped down due to a conflict of interests (he was a club employee at the time). 

 

I can fully appreciate that she is effectively in post, but for her not to actually be in post 6 months later, exemplifies one of the issues with the Trust. There is no point in paying £300k or whatever it was to have a seat on the board if:

The first Trust representative lets Brassbank take control of the club's assets without a buy your leave token public complaint. Then becomes acting CEO of the club (see the point above and below about Mr Brooke). 

 

The second representative becomes a club employee for a period before he properly steps down from the role and doesn't last much longer as a club employee after stepping down from his role on the board. 

 

The third Trust representative, who has been on its board since the beginning (didn't the Trust fail to submit its accounts properly once or twice) not actually take up the role for 6 months because the new owner hasn't held a board meeting in that time. Is very worrying. 

 

The Trust needs to seriously audit the original decision and any other money it has pumped into the club since. That has nothing to do with the ACV, which was quite clearly the correct decision, but paying money to have a seat on the board when there is no board is frankly stupid. 

 

The people connected with the Trust all work hard in a purely voluntary capacity (although certain former senior members didn't). But perhaps the focus should be on other things. 

 

And how much of that or worse would have happened if they didn’t have a seat on the board? The Trust have done a hell of lot of good for the club while being in post (including Barry and you know my thoughts on him). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, underdog said:

Diane Mellor is your Trust representative who has been nominated to be on the board of OAFC 2004 at the AGM.

 

She has passed fit and proper persons tests to be a legal board director of the business but has put on hold taking the position up for the time being. No conspiracies here, just waiting for Al to announce his other board members. Al knows this but recognises her as the Trust rep and dialogue continues between them

Thank you for the explanation, whilst not yet on the board the lady has contact with the owner so at least you ( the trust ) have a line of communication

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, underdog said:

Hi Rude... I am unsure of the Trust accounts pre my time and I have been on board for the last 4yrs now. But our Accounts are up to date and have been submitted in a timely manner every year to companies house. No trust monies have been given/gifted to the club for quite a few years now. Think it might have been before my time even then. It might have been a mini-bus for the youth team or a tractor., but it would be in the accounts at the time. If you mean clubs accounts, I must admit I haven't checked myself when they were last submitted but I think they are overdue.

 

You have summarised the Rep role V current board set up correctly and its an on going concern of ours as I believe there are rules/legalities/ with regards to businesses and regular board meetings. We have given the owner rightly/wrongly a period of time to sort thongs out, we are now approaching his first 1 year in charge and our attitude to softly, softly will be changing, it has too

I think it was before your time UD. I’m quietly confident that you joined the Trust in a senior role, after it all came out that the accounts hadn’t been filed properly.

 

The Trust seem to be heading in the right direction, as I indicated in my post about the survey, that in itself is a step in the right direction.

15 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

And how much of that or worse would have happened if they didn’t have a seat on the board? The Trust have done a hell of lot of good for the club while being in post (including Barry and you know my thoughts on him). 

I think the Trust has done some good for the club. I think the issue is that a lot of that good has been done behind close doors. I think the issue around Brassbank/the land and the club being separate entities was reasonable when Blitz /Gazal were involved with the club. The moment they separated all assets of the club should have been clearly and publicly defined, and any monies the club used to pay for Brassbank (e.g the money that stopped Brassbank having a big tax bill) should have been off written, in public, against the debt the club now owes to Brassbank/Blitz. The fact that the club’s assets clearly paid for the stand it now no longer owns is scandalous and could be argued to be fraudulent, I don’t think it is as I think the charges might have been filed by now.

 

The further and further the likes of underdog and Darren (Sorry I don’t know your username if you have one) go and the more the Trust can move away from Barry the better. Barry eroded most of his public goodwill by being Corney’s fall guy for delivering bad news, that should never have been his role. His involvement with Chedgate was the final nail in the coffin for some/most (some of us had added that final nail before then).

 

Simon Brooke seemed reasonable but then he took a job with AL but didn’t step down from his role with the Trust until much later.

 

Diane Mellor is quite frankly a non-entity but after Barry that may be the best thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, archiecat said:

Thank you for the explanation, whilst not yet on the board the lady has contact with the owner so at least you ( the trust ) have a line of communication

That is correct Archie, she asks for and is updated by Al on a regular basis.

 

We will be asking some questions at the next meeting and the survey that some of you have completed with regards to the 12 monthly review of the Trust, may shape our questions, if not pressing ones we have. possible future ones

 

Thanks

Edited by underdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, latics22 said:

Where does the 300k come from ? Ps minutes....

 £200k  bought at the time 3% cat B shares in the club. I am sure there is posted info in the pinned Trust Oldham thread above as I think our web guru is working on the Trust website at the mo. Its also documented in our submitted accounts at Companies house and on the same accounts submitted at the AGM yearly.

 

It was before my time, a little bit more was raised as it helped to launch playershare and buy I think Luke Beckett...but my memory is crap with players

Edited by underdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, underdog said:

 £200k  bought at the time 3% cat B shares in the club. I am sure there is posted info in the pinned Trust Oldham thread above as I think our web guru is working on the Trust website at the mo. Its also documented in our submitted accounts at Companies house and on the same accounts submitted at the AGM yearly.

 

It was before my time, a little bit more was raised as it helped to launch playershare and buy I think Luke Beckett...but my memory is crap with players

Luke Beckett wasn’t a Playershare buy. The Trust funded him but it was before Playershare.

 

I think the first Playershare buy was Evina, and that was when Playershare was supposedly independent from the Trust.

 

The first person to ever claim Luke Beckett was a Playershare buy was Shitpeas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Here you go;

 

1. To encourage the Trust to ask what I think to be the right questions / to highlight to others what I consider to be the right questions to be asking of the club & Trust are / to be satisfied our owner is exploring the right initiatives / to ascertain how much of a c*nt, or otherwise, Simon Blitz is being.

 

2. After my family and very close friends, to my detriment maybe, Oldham Athletic is probably the next most important thing in my life.

 

3. I think you may be missing the point here. Blitz owns the building that houses the OEC (this operates on the 1st Floor) and acts as a football stand on match days. The top floor of this building is a large unused space. We / our owner could put that space to good use in a number of ways. As a match day bar facility - like other lower league football clubs we visit have - that could invite visiting supporter into too, screen midweek games in, to generate revenue for the football club, and/or as an improved Junior Latics facility, and/or anything else you wish to think of. I want to know why it is not used for such a purpose? Is it because Blitz is being a c*nt and pricing us out by quoting exorbitant rent? Is it because our owner has not investigated it properly? Is it for A.N.Other reason for which I am not a privy? Many fans boycott the OEC because they perceive Blitz is being a c*nt. If Blitz allowed us / our owner the use of the Top Floor for a peppercorn/sensible rent, how would this affect revenue in the OEC, would it make it better or worse for Blitz? Should we / the Trust encourage fans to go for a full boycott to apply pressure to Blitz, or would that makes things worse? Why does Blitz leave all this unused square footage in his building (Top Floor & Ground) empty? I thought he was a businessman? Blitz has confirmed to fans asking - on faceache - that he attended the Fulham game as a guest of Abdallah, and thanked him accordingly. He also confirmed he has absolutely no intention of rekindling a business interest the football club. On the one hand this is good news, Abdallah is clearly reaching out to his landlord to build a cordial relationship, but is Blitz being a reasonable landlord, or a c*nt?

 

4. I don’t, I was defending him / praising him & his brother for finding Missilou & clearly supporting managers in domestic recruitment only yesterday. However, there are many things he has/has not done that I do perceive as negative and I have & will continue to call him out on them. You would also be burying your head in the sand if you chose to ignore;

- We got relegated

- Our budget has been slashed (again)

- We have nearly no coaching staff at any level.

- We’ve had enormous staff turnover and many disgruntled ex employees

- We’ve had winding up orders, wages paid late, pension contributions not made

- Lots of negative journalist stories

 

5. No-one, but;

- That doesn’t make Abdallah immune from criticism.

- There might be if Blitz wasn’t being a c*nt with his land.

 

6. Show me a moot point question, because this one you responded to, one hopes I’ve demonstrated in my response to point 3, is far from moot.

 

7. I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive. To use your analogy, If the ‘spreadsheet’ is in order, the on-field fortunes of the football club have more chance of success.

 

8. I know more than you give me credence for & I beg to differ on what we (via our Trust - shareholders) have a right to know. Now refer back to point 2.

 

9. I actually don’t like a moan in general. I’d much rather take a positive disposition. Much of my ‘moaning’ / pointed questions, are because I want there to be a football team for us to go to watch / for me to take my son to see when he is old enough.

Top post Andy. 

 

Very well reasoned and as usual well thought out. In addition I agree with a lot of what you say. 

 

The point I’m making is, does Blitz or AL as private businessmen owe as an explanation of rent space, or future expenditure? The answer unfortunately is no. It’s not our money Andy. It’s theirs. They just invested something we care about. An to be honest if I’d invested 3 million of my money I wouldn’t want to be answerable about what I’m doing with my next million. I’d be thinking, that 3 million has bought you your ability to go and see your team every week. I,  like you would love him to tell us. But the reality is that’s what has been happening for years. You seem to want very inclusive ownership, where the owners share their thoughts and divulge their plans. In all your time supporting latics have we ever had an owner like that?? 

 

Essentially what your asking for, is for a guy to come along, spend his money without ego, and put the fans and the club first and expect no financial return. It’s not based in reality. What we get are an egomaniacs, who want to play championship manger with a small community club. Who like hire and fire, and the kudos of being an owner. I wish, like you it was different. But that is exactly the owner we’ve got. 

 

 

So. With that said. 

 

You post a lot with no way of getting what you/I want. 

Blitz and AL we never answer your questions, but because quite honestly they don’t give a f**k. (Sad but true) If they did care answers to what your asking would of been forthcoming a long time ago.

 

Finally, there is a big difference between not caring, and understanding what you can and can’t influence. So why worry about what you can’t change? If you honestly think you can change it, then genuinely keep fighting the good fight. 

 

I just to want enjoy the football, an hope our owner/s don’t wreck it even more than they have over the years. 

Edited by League one forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...