Andy b

This is sound advice. Ultimately the trust must use its energy as productively as possible to support the club and ensure it continues to exist and, if possible, thrives. That’s why the trust exists. It has to be accountable and communicate with fans but fans don’t have the right to demand that the trust spends its time answering questions on here and other platforms. We have to get the balance right. Time and resources are limited. Likewise it is inappropriate for fans to know every bit of information that the trust is party to. Some is confidential and releasing it could prejudice our efforts or existence so won’t be shared. We have to make a judgement on this. Conversely some info is not particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things and doesn’t have any bearing on the decisions we make or our reading of a situation. In focusing on such information and briefing fans on it we risk taking our attention away from the things that matter. However to the extent that a specific piece or pieces of info are having a bearing on how we view the club and the steps we seek to take, that information has to be shared in the appropriate manner. Otherwise we cannot explain our position and actions. Trust directors are entrusted to use best endeavours to take steps to safeguard the club for our fans. Like it or not, they are given a mandate to use their judgement to make decisions. We seek to explain those decisions and what has informed them but, to some degree, fans need to trust that trust directors are of sound mind and are, in the grand scheme of things, capable of making the right decisions. If fans do not agree that Trust Directors are capable of doing their jobs effectively, then fans are invited to make this known. No Trust Director will stand in the way of others if there is a concensous that they can do a better job and are willing to take this on. Ensuring we are able to hold the owner to account, that he is acting responsibly and not jeopardising the future of the club is the principal focus. We are more effective in doing that if we are backed by our fans. We have to report into fans and it’s right that we do this. I hope everyone can that there has been a marked improvement in our communication over recent weeks and months. Thank you

So sorry.

To clarify our position further to Underdog’s post: 1) We asked questions and set our expectations based on what was discussed at the meet on 23rd. Whether people liked the specific questions/expectations as presented is, to some degree, academic. The bigger picture is that we are attempting to make our presence felt and hold the owner to account (publically) in a way the trust has not done for a long time. That I think is supported by most as a principle 2) the trust does not have a lawyer on the Board so we used our collective judgement in concluding that some info in the letter received could be privileged or that the release of that info could prejudice legal proceedings ongoing. We formed the view that that could come back to harm the Trust (and trust directors) particularly in the absence of any agreement from the sender to put that information into the public domain. This was a laypersons judgement. That’s not a risk to be taken even if ‘experts’ on this board believe that risk to be low or nil. We stand by that decision. The info to which we refer was volunteered by the owner - we didn’t ask for it - and we didn’t consider it was our info to put into the public domain. Anyone who operates in a real world context will understand that I would hope. 3) On 17th April we sought the sender’s permission to distribute the letter. Should we have held off saying anything until he had either given us that permission or declined it? Maybe. We wanted to brief fans ASAP so took the decision to present our summary of the letter and explain our position on the extent to which it addressed our collective concerns. 4) Our summary was written entirely in good faith with no agenda or attempt at bias. My concsious is totally clear. We stand by our position that it is balanced and a fair reflection of the content and sentiments within the letter, aside from the points which we held back. Yes our brief expresses an opinion on the content and that is entirely appropriate. 5) Our judgement on the letter (are we satisfied?) is set out. I am not aware that anyone disagrees that we have come to the right conclusion about whether it addresses fans’ concerns and issues. Correct me if I am wrong. 6) that the letter has been leaked by someone and any inevitability in that happening should not have had any bearing on the trust’s decision to release the letter or not We have extracted a written communication from the owner clearly aimed at responding to fans’ concerns. Focus your energies on judging that response and whether you are happy with it. That is the first such communication of this type in many months. It is step forward in enabling us to understand the owner’s perspective and form a view as to whether he is going to be capable of running the club in a responsible manner. You may wish to prejudge the answer to that question but this is a process and we have to take it in incremental steps. I would urge people to see the bigger picture objective here rather than focusing on finer points of detail that, in the grand scheme of things, do not matter much. Action is needed. The Trust is taking well intended steps to deliver that. We don’t always get it right and we are open to ways to doing things better in the future and learning from past experience.

The answer is no. Please don’t jump to conclusions.

Sorry I don’t understand your points and i haven’t seen your questions i also haven’t said you have nothing better to do. for your info I am 37, with a five year old and a 10 month and a demanding job. I have better things to do than worry about Trust Oldham but someone’s got to.

Is this aimed at me?

Hi Jimbooth. sorry my response was a general one on the matter not a response to you as such. Our summary and reaction would be the same whether the additional info was in their or not. It’s not particularly relevant.

Guys, we have presented the relevant points on the letter and been very thorough about it. If you choose to focus on what we cannot say I can’t do anything about that. Any additional info in the response does not change our stance on the letter and the extent to which we are reassured by it, as reported in our statement. Will be saying no more on the matter for now.

How is the trust not engaging with fans? Not releasing a letter due to risks (legal) associated with releasing potentially privileged info does not constitute a failure to engage. Someone back me up on this please.

Hi WO, I take your point but the letter is addressed to the Trust and whilst not marked P&C I and other Trust Directors have taken the view that the letter should not be placed in the public domain without the sender’s express authorisation. We will seek this. The salient points of relevance are outlined. Thanks

https://trustoldham.co.uk/letter-to-mr-lemsagam-update-16th-april/

Not saying there is a change, but scholes piece is one in a long line of things which are defining and then reinforcing the club’s reputation. People will listen to what scholes has to say and will believe his interpretation of the club and how it is managed.

Scholes is respected by millions. People listen to what he has to say (rightly or wrongly) and our club’s reputation and circumstances will now be fixed in peoples mind. The nuanced points being raised aren’t appreciated by non-oldham fans who will take what scholes says on face value, as each of us does when only fleetingly engaging in an issue which is not personal to us.

I might be tempted to agree

Don’t think anyone is praising scholes for his managerial performance or indeed suggesting he would have been a good manager. The fact of the matter is that after less than one month in charge, following lots of careful thinking about whether and when to take the job, he decided that he couldn’t work under the conditions presented. Given his experience of lower league football both through Salford City and being a Latics fan I think it would be unfair to suggest he was a pampered premier league star with no grip on the reality of life in league 2. You might level that sort of criticism at many others but not scholes. We need to focus on what his actions and decision to potentially harm his own reputation tells us about OAFC at the current time.

Anecdotally I would say most generally support the approach taken at this stage.

Thanks. It’s honestly much appreciated feedback. I know you recognise that we won’t please everyone and there is no right way of going about it. For what it’s worth, the letter is a reach out but aims to be assertive at the same time. Its put down a marker and is a statement of intent. It is multiple things and has multiple purposes. As an expression of our position, it provides a platform for next steps. It’s not the end but one step in a process. I wouldn’t have expected a response if the letter has been toned down and thus that approach wouldn’t have achieved any more. I wouldn’t disagree that the questions don’t necessarily sit comfortably in the context of the rest of the letter. They are important questions however for various reasons and we want to know the answer to these as they help understand how the club is being run. It’s the trust’s responsibility to ask these questions. You clearly didn’t attend the meet on 23rd March when there was a concensous that we ask these specific questions as part of this correspondence. As Tracy has advised, we are taking steps on the back of no response. I am on a long weekend away whilst Darren is in Korea until next week. We are mobilising next steps but it might take a couple of days. Thanks

How would you have approached the letter?

The trust is not some faceless impenetrable organisation. It is a collection of oldham fans who want to achieve a better future for the club. You and everyone of those on this board are exactly the same in that regard. Give constructive feedback but unless you are prepared to step up and make the changes you champion (which you may we’ll be willing to do), I would urge you to be a be a bit more respectful in your critique. Posts like this do harm and achieve little. Get involved in the trust and the you may find that the trust takes the direction you think it should. Half the people on here spend hours thinking about OAFC and posting. That time and those ideas end up being dumped into the black hole that is this message board. Put your energies and wisdom to better use and get involved in the trust. Your ideas might just have an effect then. Surely thats a better use of your time

Wiseowl and I are meeting to discuss his ideas and future vision for the trust. Nothing is off the table but let’s go about considering changes of such magnitude in the right manner. Chucking things out on message boards won’t get us very far and it’s not the forum for such big ticket items. I would encourage wiseowl to consider being coopted on the trust board as a first step

We are not promoting a match day protest as previously advised. There are good reasons for that, at the heart of which is the fact that we are currently focused on trying to be cordial with the owner with a view to engaging with him in a positive manner. Lets see that process out first. There is a logical order of events in our efforts to hold the owner to account. The Mansfield game and it being live on television is an irrelevance in that context.

The trust, as advised by supporters direct, will take steps post 12th April in the event of no response. There is an agreed course of action. I will have to leave that there until after 12th. We are not promoting a physical protest at this point. Sorry if that’s not as exciting as some would like. The aim remains to bring the owner to the table and we are pursuing the course of action which is most likely to achieve that. That approach has a natural time limit in the event of continued no response

No response received to date and no acknowledgement of receipt to any Trust Director. I don’t read anything at all into that.

Trust meeting held tonight and advice sought from Supporters Direct last week about next steps. Likely to be a fans meeting on or around 25th April (evening) if we don’t get a response. More info to follow. For now we await the owners response by 12th thanks

Some good points in here. I definitely welcome people taking a step back and trying to consider what a future sustainable and viable OAFC looks like. That’s what we need to do more of. Our current approach is about reaching out to AL and trying to get him to come to the table and engage in some productive conversations about the long term future, as well as shorter term operational issues. We are here to try and help him and we offer that within our letter. We need him to open up though and be willing to let us in. We can then look to put some options on the table as to how we and fans can support, financially or otherwise.