Andy b

7 hours ago, League one forever said:

I know where your coming from, and your right they do need to communicate via social media. Which they having been doing a good job of recently. 

 

What they don’t need to do, is be answerable to every nuance of every sentence they put out. IMO people hammer them with questions that make no material difference. What does it add to the future of our club to know if he AL said that the trust could say this or that??? In the grand scheme of things it’s completely pointless. We all we’re perceptive enough to read between the lines anyway.  In addition there is an implication in a lot questions, that whatever the trust do, it will never be enough to satisfy people’s strange need to know every detail of a owners spreadsheet and or thinking. 

 

Posters say, ‘I ask because I care’ funny that. So you care enough to spend all day on here telling everybody how much you care, and how outraged you are, but you haven’t got an hour on Saturday to attend a fans meeting??? 

 

The trust are not perfect. Nor do they claim to be. But they are much improved recently, and yet it’s still enough. 

 

People should remember who the enemy is, and it’s not the trust. 

 

 

 

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 

Just now, latics22 said:

So was the plan to release the full letter once permission was gained? If so why was this not said yesterday ?

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. 

6 minutes ago, latics22 said:

I asked if what was said we are not privy to, is a positive and shows al is on board with sharing information with the trust that he is only doing to show a commitment to be open or honest ? Or something along those lines!

The answer is no.

Please don’t jump to conclusions.

2 minutes ago, Andy b said:

Is this aimed at me?

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.

2 minutes ago, latics22 said:

Andy can my questions be answered please ? They are not asking for specifics, just an opinion on what u know ? kig! I like how passionate you are! It’s not a bad thing, but to say people don’t have anything better to do is an insult ! I’ll give u an insight into what is better (tongue in cheek ) I have two girls 3 and 4 one might say better is in a play centre or painting! Not to be condescending about your age as it’s unfair! ( enjoy your youth) however trust me! You may remember this one day! Looking after children, or watching terrible football with a tosser owner, always beats looking after children

Is this aimed at me?

Just now, Jimbooth said:

With all due respect Andy, I didn't ask for access to the information. I only asked if it worried you. Surely you can share your reaction, I'm sure it's not protected by GDPR. 

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.

12 minutes ago, Jimbooth said:

Thanks Andy

I understand the reasons you can't disclose sensitive information without express consent. But can you at least tell us what you think? Did it cast a positive light on AL? Did it make you worry? 

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.

2 minutes ago, pk200 said:

I find it a strange decision for trust not to engage with fans...the same accusation that the trust level at marco...comments please

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.

1 hour ago, wiseowl said:

 

Thanks Andy.

 

As it was an "open letter" from the fans (via the Trust) that was sent to AL, it's strange that it's not an "open letter" in reply.

 

Is it AL who has specifically requested that the full reply is not published please or was that a Trust decision?

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/

36 minutes ago, Magic Mikey said:

I don't know what the viewing figures are for that program but I can't imagine it's very many. I would personally put my head into a bucket of sick to avoid listening to Steve Macmanaman's "insights" on football. Beyond some Latics fans I doubt there will be much of a change in the reputation of our club in the rest of the country. 

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. 

1 minute ago, archiecat said:

I am glad that it has now been established that Scholes will never have a future career in football.

Don't know why he bothered to speak out about his month in charge because people have already come to the conclusion that Scholes knows nothing, has no bottle and is not half the man Wild is. 

Some of our fans and that  are a marriage made in heaven.

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. 

1 minute ago, OLDHAMADE said:

I'm still of the belief that scholes wouldn't have done any better even if he was in charge of Brazil and that tells you all you need to know about his future management credentials.

Half the man, Pete wild is 

I might be tempted to agree 

16 minutes ago, True Tic said:

And you behave yourself talking about goals which might not have been conceded but actually were!

 

The brief stats for both Wild and Scholes speak for themselves.

 

Scholes could and should have given it longer, unfortunately he didn't and all we can do is judge him on what actually happened, not what could have happened.

 

Interfering once with player selection should have prompted a further chat with the chairman to remind him what was agreed initially, not, "right that's it I'm off", its pathetic.

 

 

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.

15 hours ago, kowenicki said:

The letter wasn’t great honestly, but the fact he hasn’t responded in any way at all is worse.... but 100% expected.  

 

So.... I’ll leave the obvious point that can be made as it seems people get defensive about it.  

 

However, it’s clear he sees his 97% as the key factor... he does not respect or recognise the trust.  In his head, he owns the club and can do as he pleases (which frankly is true). 

 

That’s your starting point. Good luck. I don’t envy you.

 

(A confrontational approach was/is never going to work with a character that has an ego though)

 

 

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

20 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Ok. So this is where some will get defensive and others will just jump on me.  I would hope people don’t ask questions only to get answers they like. People are allowed opinions. 

 

I wouldn’t have sent a letter. But if I had I wouldn’t have included such ‘trivial’ detail and ‘petty’ demands.  Some of it was cringeworthy honestly, not worth mentioning and would get most people’s backs up.  The letter was labelled by the Trust as a way to “reach out”, but it read more like a letter to chastise to me and was a series of demands. 

 

I would have just urged him to meet... put across the mutual benefits of a meeting, explained how the Trust intentions are honest and constructive and left it at that.  If he doesn’t want to meet on even that basis then a confrontational letter of demands is going to get binned anyway. 

 

In the end you would probably be in the same place anyway, as it seems he isn’t interested. I just think taking him on was not going to get anywhere due to his ego.  It’s now probably too late for any other approach though. 

 

Now, if the real intention of the letter was more a case of putting down a marker and beginning an audit trail for legal purposes then fine, it’s achieved that, but in no conceivable way could it be considered as ‘reaching out’. 

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 

36 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

The letter wasn’t great honestly, but the fact he hasn’t responded in any way at all is worse.... but 100% expected.  

 

So.... I’ll leave the obvious point that can be made as it seems people get defensive about it.  

 

However, it’s clear he sees his 97% as the key factor... he does not respect or recognise the trust.  In his head, he owns the club and can do as he pleases (which frankly is true). 

 

That’s your starting point. Good luck. I don’t envy you.

 

(A confrontational approach was/is never going to work with a character that has an ego though)

 

 

How would you have approached the letter?

6 hours ago, wiseowl said:

League one - we disagree - not unusual on a board like this.

 

I found it despicable that Underdog was abused by a fan - and expressed the same in that thread.

 

I have also said to Underdog (elsewhere) not to take things personally; I have respect for the individuals involved, it's just I don't happen to be a great fan of the organisation (The Trust).

 

As for "nobody is interested in the past" - sorry but I am - simply because it is possible to learn from past mistakes.

 

 

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

6 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Impossible to say without trying it but let's consider this scenario.

 

The Trust decided to go "independent" after their frustrating experiences with Mr Corney. A new owner was coming in, so here was the chance for a clean break. It was great news that the new owner was willing to hand back the Trust's initial investment of £200,000 (or thereabouts from what has been said on here) in return for their 3% shareholding (and I`ve no idea what the true valuation was at the time of the takeover - I suspect we've all got an idea what the £200,000 might be worth presently!).

 

So, a phoenix Trust is born, independent of a new owner (who, as it happens in time, the Trust find as frustrating as the previous owner). In a time of crisis (whatever you personally view that to be) then this independent entity is the single and obvious place to turn to for solidarity as fans and its membership grows very quickly. What's more, it's wisely invested its £200,000 and a safeguarded bond type scheme is devised whereby concerned fans can add to the "war chest" per chance anything dire should happen to their club in the future. If happy days are ahead, then the new Trust, via its members, can decide best how to use any funds (e.g. playershare type stuff, facilities for fans at the ground, fan events on match days, away days with Latics etc.).

 

It would be a Trust of excellence, with Oldham Athletic fans at its heart and, as such, supporters would have no need to look elsewhere - there would be no fragmenting of our support in times of need/crisis because no splinter group could come anywhere near matching it.

 

So, gone would be the days when you're constantly told "we've got a 3% shareholding and a seat on the board you know" and you scratch your head and say to yourself "yes but what use is it in reality?". Gone are the doubts you have that people may get too close to the club's inner workings/people and then "jump ship" from the Trust to go and join the board of the very club/company they are supposed to be holding to account on behalf of the fans!

 

Like I say, League one - we'll never know because it will probably not now happen. Incidentally, the independent idea is what I discussed at length with the Trust Chairman and a director a couple of years ago during the Corney turmoil. I was looking to set up an independent supporters' group under a Fans' Charter. After meeting the said members of the Trust, I decided not to do so because I had the club at heart and didn't want to fragment the support any further.

 

I really do wish I had pressed ahead, or at least joined the Trust to influence it from within, as my honest view is that independence, together with a reasonable start to a financial war chest by having sold the 3% shares to the new owner would have seen us in a much better position than the one we now find ourselves in.

 

 

 

 

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

3 minutes ago, Clifford said:

Team are winning, fans aren't arsed that the owner is meddling, until the next time it becomes an issue. At that point we may be where Bury are and it will be too late. 

 

Did we not know Easter was coming? The Sky game was an ideal game to target and you've let it pass. Shame really. 

 

Could be worth the trust trying to contact Sky and see if they will make comment on the situation. 

 

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.

34 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

I would imagine that fans will be looking to move sooner than that if there's no response. There will probably be a protest at the Mansfield match.

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 

2 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Cheers Andy. Someone responded to me on here (may have been Underdog) that Trust relations had not, in fact, broken down with AL (i.e. to the extent they had with SC previously). If that's the case, then surely he has indicated to someone from the Trust that a) he's received the letter and b) will respond to it (or appropriate bits of it as he sees fit) ASAP or by the deadline? 

 

Sorry if I`ve missed this covered elsewhere.

No response received to date and no acknowledgement of receipt to any Trust Director.

I don’t read anything at all into that.

59 minutes ago, Hands on said:

Scholes is not the issue and we might never know how good or bad a manager he would have made.  You can't be at odds with the owner and perform well as was evidenced by Wellens.

 

The issue is the failure of Marco despite his public pronouncements to engage with the supporters.  Giving us a scarf is the way you engage with a two year old.

 

Engagement is particularly important when rumour after rumour suggests that the club is not debt free and could be heading for disaster even greater than sticking his oar in and facilitating our relegation to league two.

 

The letter is the right way forward for the Trust.  It is an opportunity for Marco to give at least some answers - to prove that some of the rumours have no foundation.  It is his move next but if he fails to answer something has to be done.  I would favour taking legal advice to find out how/if Marco can be forced to engage as he should with the Trust and then doing it.

 

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 

7 hours ago, Ritchierich said:

The funny thing about clubs our size is that the finances could be altered pretty quickly by getting an extra 500-1000 fans per home game....suddenly the club breaks even so the owner doesn’t need to subsidise.

 

This depends on the club being well organised and well run operationally in the first place which we don’t have at the moment and which is also difficult due to the dangerous structure with Brassbank/band and the other asset stripping entities.

 

I suppose what I’m saying is we have 2 clear choices...we can either disengage with the club and owners and work against them in the hope that a very wealthy and hopefully smart new owner will magically appear on the scene or, we can take a different tack and collectively decide to go all in with AL and to some extent the ex-amigos and try to turn the club around.

 

The Trust would need to re-invent itself as a bigger, more open, more forceful entity with the kind of regular, large scale fan meets and a focus on fan engagement. Can AL be pursuaded to sell a small percentage to fans for example....how many of us would be prepared to put in £100-£1000 for a tiny stake each? I would. 

 

Could we turn Latics into a fan owned (at least in part) and run club....it could be a dream scenario for AL, he gets to keep living the dream and we get to enjoy it like we should and be part of it.

 

Maybe this is all nonsense and we’re doomed but the 4,000 at Fulham and the amazing away support and passion for this little club tells me it still has something special and it’s not beyond saving

 

I didn’t go to Colchester yesterday like I would normally and I felt annoyed at myself, I don’t want to let the owners ruin our club but maybe AL just needs help and support and just doesn’t know how to do it. Was his request for non-execs a first recognition of this and an attempt to reach out?

 

One or two fan representatives on the Board is NOT the answer, we need large scale fan involvement, ownership and engagement, we need hundreds then thousands of Oldham fans to truly feel it is their club. 

 

 

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.