Latics and England

1 - 1 (0 - 0) Lang 3,392

1 - 1 (0- 0) Lang 3,689

I disagree. The demands you refer to are there in the ‘Expectations’ section. The specific questions largely relate to a statement he has made either publicly or in his conversations with those invited to speak with him. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask him to back up statements he has already made.

I think it is a reasonable letter. My only concern would be that it is unclear what it is requesting to be provided to the Trust confidentially and what is being asked to be provided to then be shared with members/fans. In particular, I think it may be unreasonable to ask what offer has been made for the ground. It is known that the Trust is connected to the FLG. It would be a strange decision of the owner to tell this group (as a rival bidder) what offer he has made. I would also be wary, if I was him, of disclosing next year’s budget if this was going to be shared widely. Knowing the size of the budget is something that could give competitive advantage to rival teams. The Trust shouldn’t be scared of confirming that some answers will not be shared widely and we, as fans, should accept that we might have to take the Trust’s word on some things if they simply tell us that they have had an appropriate answer. It is a great start though and if we got 11 answers back to those 13 questions I would be delighted. Over to you Abdallah.

Latics 1 - 1 Grimsby h/t 0-0 Lang 3,715

I think the most important thing today was to show that people are worried and were prepared to come together to talk about it. 150 turning up at a few days notice definitely did show that. It was very much an opportunity for people to express their views and that was achieved. On top of that, a list of questions were collated and the Trust have taken it on themselves to push for answers. The next steps are crucial. Having had a session to get things off our chests we now need some more structured meetings where we de ide what action we believe will lead to the improvements we want to see. One thing that was clear was that it is difficult to manage a meeting of that size yet when someone suggested smaller meetings there was a lot of push back. I don't know what the answer is on this because I understand the concerns that we don't have fans who are seen as being able or mandated to represent the wider fanbase. I'd like to think that the Trust boosted by new directors might be able to do this but there is still some way to go for them to win over many fans. That will take time and there is clarity as to whether we have much time. At present there are clearly conflicting views as to whether people want to boycott games and whether they will be renewing season tickets. Whilst everyone needs to make their own personal decisions it feels like this should be discussed pretty quickly. If some fans feel that these measures are appropriate they would only be powerful if there is a coordinated approach.

The Tramps game has been rearranged for the 2nd which will affect the number of people who can make a meeting on the 1st and make it difficult to arrange something effective at 24 hour’s notice. A meeting this coming Saturday feels like a better option to me.

As someone who hasn’t been involved with the Trudt for several years I understand the point that you are making but I think you are being unfair. The Trust has always struggled to attract volunteers and so to suggest that only those who attend matches every week should be involved is unreasonable. The core of the Trust Board will be made up of people who attend most games but there will be others who don’t. It seems quite logical that some people who are unable to get to games might see helping out on the Trust as being a way of putting something into the club because they can’t get to as many games as they would like. Personally I would think that it might have been a good opportunity for those Trust directors who were able to have had a meeting today but if it was felt that they should wait until an arranged meeting where more are available I can understand that. The Trust are the right people to organise a protest if for no other reason than there is nobody else. It is a sad indictment but there is no Supporters Association or similar fan group. what we really need is for the Trust to reach out to other notable collections of fans and all come together to plan something. This might include the Athleticos, the hundred club (assuming it still exists), prominent OWTB posters etc.

So... Fane is sacked/released. The scenario exists whereby Scholes wanted to play Fane on Saturday in the absence of Baxter but was told that he couldn’t because he is no longer our player. Scholes is not able to run the club in the way that he wants because he can’t play someone who he believed was an employee who was available for selection. Lemsagam believes that he hasn’t interfered in team selection as clearly you can’t play someone who is no longer on the books. From his perspective, that is hardly his fault as he will say that the release/sacking was inevitable and related to things well before Scholes arrived. Both Scholes and Lemsagam give statements that they wholeheartedly believe to be true.

It's not possible to answer that without knowing why he came in the first place.

Whilst there will clearly be some financial hit, I don't believe that there will be many people paying on the day so I can't see there being much of an impact financially. The proposed protest won't be anything like as visible as empty stands. Maybe Tranmere can outnumber us after all.

Yes. Once we appoint a manager we have to give them time. We have no idea whether any of them were up to the task, we only know that they started badly. Kelly only got 9 games. It may well be that he would have continued to be dreadful but we will never know. After the Newport game Scholes could be 9 games in with a worse record than Kelly. If you think it was right to sack him when we did, the logical conclusion would be that Scholes should follow suit. We need to change the mindset and treat this like the longer term plan that it should be (and a relatively quick promotion should be a fundamental part of that longer term plan).

Latics 1 - 2 Tramps H/t 0-0 Lang 4,248

Lincoln 2 - 0 Latics H/t 0-0 8,862

Glossop is right, the issue here is at Boardroom level. Whether that means Abdallah or Corney is up for debate. In my opinion we are where we are because of a decade of mismanagement under the previous owner culminating in a procession of managers who were not given long enough to build a team. That has continued under the current owner so he needs to take responsibility too. As I don't believe Abdallah has huge resources I think we had to go for promotion this campaign. I acknowledge that there was a job to do to stabilise following all that had happened under Corney but I fear that each season we eat up for of a very finite pot of cash and so next year's budget will be lower than this season's. I hope I am wrong. As for the question asked in another thread: whether we'd kept Bunn or not I think we would have finished mid table so in the very short term it made no real difference. In the medium term it is difficult to judge. Scholes should be able to attract better players but over the summer we will have someone starting out on their 'plan' (yeah, I know) rather than someone almost a year into theirs. Ultimately it is irrelevant. We have got PS in charge and we desperately need him to stay long enough to actually achieve something.

The reason we are not going to make the play-offs is not down to Scholes. It was looking difficult when he was appointed and the failure to build in January (by not having a manager in situ) meant it was even more difficult than it looked. One win in 6 including 5 very winnable games is poor though. It has to now be about next season and it is to be hoped that Abdallah is going to find some dough to back Scholes in the summer. He needs to do more to show he can motivate the players he has, though and it is not acceptable to just drift to the end of the season. Scholes has said that he wants his side to entertain. Even if this squad isn't capable of winning on a regular basis they have to deliver some level of entertainment. Playing for a draw in a meaningless game at Cambridge doesn't fit the remit.

Not a bad record at all considering a quarter of his games were against teams from higher divisions.

Wow. We have had 2 of our 5 best performing managers this season and we are where we are. It really does show just bad the last 18 years has been.

Cambridge 2 - 1 Latics h/t 0-0 Lang 4,439

As someone who doesn't like to sit in the same seat every week, is the suggestion here that I shouldn't get a season ticket? It never crossed my mind that by having a seat I never sit in amongst the thousands of other empty seats was somehow depriving someone else. Randomly I did consider sitting in it the other week. When I got there someone was sat in it. I guess I should have kicked them out of it but as they seemed happy enough to be there I just sat somewhere else.

Oldham 3 - 1 Stevenage H/t 0-0 Dearnley 4,218

Did anyone go to see Pete last night at Milan Bar? Was anything interesting said?

Bury 3 - 1 Latics H/t 0-0 Dearnley 6,618

Definitely a case of what could go wrong did go wrong. I am happy with whatever solution you come to. This is my first season taking part and I am enjoying it. Don't let one balls up put you off, you are doing a great job.

I think it is clear that the Trust don’t have any financial weight to throw behind this attempt to purchase the ground and whoever has invited them to get involved knows that. The fact that they want them involved, however, has to be a positive. This is described as ‘fan led’. If that is the case then whoever it is will want some element of legitimacy and the Trust offers that. Whatever your views of the Trust, there is no other fan group out there. The Supporters Association disbanded years ago so the Trust offers the best chance of putting forward the “fans’ perspective”. We need to trust that they will ensure that our best interests are represented in any meetings but to do that, we probably need to leave them in peace to get on with it. In return the Trust need to tell us what they can do when they can do. We mustn’t kid ourselves. The odds that someone wants to purchase the ground solely to secure the future of the club feels unlikely. You would need a hell of a lot of cash rattling round your pockets to do that. It is important, therefore, that the commercial sense of the deal is considered alongside the requirement to benefit the football club. Abdallah needs to be consulted with very closely if he isn’t part of the consortium (assuming it is a consortium).