Andy b

Give the 2019 version of the trust a chance my friend, you might pleasantly surprised

We were aware of the meet. I too was stood down at the 11th hour by the person (fan) who instigated the meet who was eventually told by the club that it was just he and AL (plus colleagues) at the meet. 25 fans there in the end (hand picked as potential advocates of the owner). Looks like a PR effort. we all have the club’s interests at heart. The trust is secondary but we have to use the trust to get our messages across to the the owner with a view to starting a positive dialogue between the trust and fans. Trust wants to help the owner

To be clear, this resignation came last week and before Saturday’s meet had been confirmed. It has no bearing on the trust’s position regarding the current situation at the club as expressed through various channels over the last 7 days. See you on Saturday.

Well done that man/woman

People are trying to do something to bring fans together and agree a course of action. I would urge you have an open mind and contribute to making sure it is a vehicle for meaningful action. It’s not anyone’s job to convince you of its worthiness. It will be productive if you make it productive.

This is about establishing a strategy to make feelings known to the owner. It plays out over a period of weeks, months and possibly longer. It’s not about a single day or protest but a coordinated action plan, part of which might be visible match day protesting. There is no drive for the meet to happen immediately and 1st is a matter of days away.

Fans meet being arranged for 1st april. Details to be confirmed in the next day or so. That is where we pool ideas and agree a common course of action, whatever that may be. We need to act together to have an effective voice.

And they have.

Ps and yes alarm bells were ringing on several fronts. That doesn’t mean you publically turn on the owner.

The trust has not successfully achieved the right balance between trying to support the new owner and holding him to account. In my six months of involvement that would be my observation. There are reasons for that which I won’t go into. However that is a very difficult balance to strike. It is right that since AL has taken over the focus should have been on trying to support him in being a responsible owner as far as possible. We couldn’t just change that and go on a public offensive overnight in response to rumours and hearsay. There is no comeback from turning on the owner. Our preference is for whoever owns the club to be an effective owner and to try and help them achieve that. That demands a more diplomatic approach. Any change in approach has to come on the back of clear evidence that the owner is not capable of achieving the status of being a responsible over a sustained period of time. It’s not a decision to be taken lightly, though in respect of any owner there idoes come a point where we have to choose that option.

My reference to a vocal trust is future tense

The trust spent the first 11 months of the AL regime being of the opinion that he was well intended and giving him the benefit of doubt as he was new to the role and inherited many problems (which was true) which would hopefully be sorted in time. A close watching brief was being maintained. . the mood towards AL changed over Christmas as more info became available about what was going on and his openness with the trust started to change. Since then (that’s only 2.5 months ago) we have spent time trying to get him to come to the table to explain himself. A line of questioning had been agreed. no response. We were preparing to ramp things up then we got this week’s news. Its not a knee jerk, jump on the bandwagon reaction from the trust. It’s been building. However we simply haven’t had enough knowledge to launch a campaign against him at any point over the last 12 months and the mood music around him has only properly changed over the last 10 weeks or so

There is a substantial move in that direction. I have been pushing for a degree of independence to relieve the trust of its otherwise conflicted position. There has been significant progress on that front in the last few hours with the PS situation being the event needed to trigger this change. You can expext to see a less constrainted and more vocal trust as a result.

He can call the game off if he wants. It won’t stop the protest in the long run. He has undoubtly united fans against him. That may be his downfall. Corney cleaverly made sure that that didnt happen. The only question is how we take the protest forward in the longer term, which may partly depend on how he responds over the coming weeks. I personally fully back a boycott. Others on the trust do not. Fanwide meeting is being planned to agree how we move forward as one. For now, all but one Trust Director favours the Trust backing the planned fan led protest as a statement of disatisfaction

They were at BP for most of the day but didn’t get involved in scholes stuff. Watched bits from the safety of the OEC.

A stable existence provides the foundation for success hence the trust’s focus. The latter rarely comes without the former. It’s not about ambition.

How does that happen? That’s a good question but generally a number of ways: - engaging the owner, challenging him on how he is running the club and getting him to put things right where needed - using its legal right as a club share holder to achieve the above - speaking for the fans and doing it publically. People power can be influential - securing the long term future of BP as a football stadium and ensuring it cannot be developed for other purposes (ACV for example and ensuring the Oldham Local Plan puts some protective policies in place relating to BP which reflect its vital community role) - building a war chest so fans can take over should the unthinkable happen That’s not to say that the trust has been 100 per cent effective in these areas but the above are the principal means by which the trust can have a positive effect going forward.

In my capacity as a member of the TO Board I shall respond more fully to this feedback later when I have more time. What I would say for now is that, with all due respect, you are totally missing the point. Darren is working his socks off to put the trust in a position where it can affect positive change within the club. It has not been in that position for many years. We are starting from a low base. The focus is on ensuring the club has a sustainable and viable future. The trust’s horizon is 5, 10, 15 years hence and principally focused on off the pitch matters, not what happens on the pitch this season or next. Promotion in the short term would be great but it is not the be all and end all and mustn’t be something to be pursued at any cost. There are bigger issues to concern ourselves with. That was Darren’s point. Don’t take it out of context.

Trust meeting on 10th. Will raise it with the Supporters Liason Officer. thanks

Yeah must be. Working it backwards, seating in lookers and main paddocks took us down to 13.5k so we must have been at about 16k post new RRE and upwards of 18k post chaddy seating.

Hmm that's odd. Thought capacity pre chaddy going seated was about 19.5k on the basis we never topped that during the pinch me season. We lost about 2.4k when chaddy went seated but that would have put capacity down to about 17k. Something doesnt add up

Sorry, BP capacity that should have read

Na, BP attendance was down to about 17k after chaddy went seated so that can't be right.

Never topped 20knon the pinch me season. got a small allocation for the first OT league game in the top flight so the 8k must have been the cup game. biggest since the prem days was prob Wigan away in 2002/03 I recall.

Well said. thats social media for you. Most people say things only to provock a reaction and spend hours debating shite as they have little else to do with their lives. Most people are pragmatic and reasonable in their proper views, which do not actually reflect what people stick on this board. It's not real life. please see this context before biting