Foreign backer in Latics talks

[wardlelatic]

You have a post count that reads 24. I would suggest its about a balance. We never hear from you! As a fans repersentive do you really think that is not being remote? I have looked on the trusts own website and there is very little from you talking about whats going on. To be frank I think newyorkboss has probably posted more than you have.

 

Feel free to claim you are not remote but if your never here I dont know what else to call it. Where else can hear your views ? My life at Oldham Athleitc like many revolves around going to the pub untill 2:30 and then getting to the ground for 2:50 and watching the game! (Which would change hopefully when we have nice new stuff in our ground )

 

 

Here lays the problem, we have tried events and activites before matches so fans get to speak to other fans and member of Trust Oldham but most just want to stay in the pub until the last moment and head straight to the match ! That is fine, we all work hard and want to relax at the weekend we understand that.

 

Recently we ran Question of Latics, a chance to meet 90% of the trust oldham board and ask questions. Its events like these were fans gets to speak to Barry, myself and others who can let people know about all the latest news.

 

The Trust site isnt at the moment 100% operational and updated but after the next meeting this should be rectified.

 

I ask a question now, If I was to organise before a game a forum where fans can attend and ask questions to Barry and others in one of the sponsor boxes would peopel attend ? The bar would be open and we might even through in some crisps and sandwiches

 

 

Newyorkboss like you mentioned does post rarely and like Barry he reads this MB emost days to ensure they understand the current view of fans.

 

We have to be greatful that TTA, Barry, Hardy and Stu take the time to listern to US the fans. Not many clubs have owners and a board who will do that !

 

 

I never suggested that!!! I respect that some things need to be kept quiet...

 

What I have suggested that only 20+ posts is way off the communication levels I and others expect... its about a blance...

 

At the moment the trust is poorly supported and the fan on the board has not changed in 5 years and is seldom heard from... Its all a little wrong...

 

I do support the idea of a fan on the board though///

 

Being honest, there is no-one else within the trust who can deicate so many hours to even think of sitting on the club board.

One thing about the continuity of Barry being on the board is that TTA know and trust him and ensure he is involved

 

Would TTA be so accomedating if the Trust elect a new person for the club board every year or 2 ?

 

 

[Lags]

Without being rude to the trust - several of my friends are on it's board - it's share of Oldham Athletic is less than worthless. It gives them no power whatsoever. The fact that they paid something like £200,000 for it (IIRC?) is crazy!

 

 

It was the clubs money anyway. Well certainly the biggest bulk of it was from the match. I back TTA without question but to give up the Trusts 3%...no chance. Whats up, is Barry's tenure nearly up?

[Barryowen]

It was the clubs money anyway. Well certainly the biggest bulk of it was from the match. I back TTA without question but to give up the Trusts 3%...no chance. Whats up, is Barry's tenure nearly up?

You are usually more on the ball than this Lagsy. The money was raised by the fans, through the game as well, to use on the fans behalf in the best interests of the club. It certainly was'nt raised to assist any private investor that might come in, to effectively reduce their investment price. Whether people agree, the sum of money involved bought the fans a voice at the club. People have different opinions as to the worth of that investment as they have towards the Trust.

 

A lot of Trust Directors have remained on board for the past five years because they have been willing to put their spare hours into working towards the Trust aims in helping the club. We are always willing to take new blood on board but in the past people have been reticent in coming forward. Yes you are right I am up for re-election shortly but I am sure the membership would not give up the three percent on that basis lololololol.

 

If not re-elected and that is for the membership to decide, a new chairman would evolve for the Trust.

 

As it stands I am more than happy to fulfill my promises to fans when I started the job. On the 3 percent issue I note your comments that are not dis-similiar to the many phone calls I have received from members.

 

The initiative is with the owners to come forward with proposals that the membership can consider and to date discussions have not yet started as to what these might be.

 

Sorry about the result today .

 

Regards

 

Barry

[Lags]

You are usually more on the ball than this Lagsy. The money was raised by the fans, through the game as well, to use on the fans behalf in the best interests of the club. It certainly was'nt raised to assist any private investor that might come in, to effectively reduce their investment price. Whether people agree, the sum of money involved bought the fans a voice at the club. People have different opinions as to the worth of that investment as they have towards the Trust.

 

A lot of Trust Directors have remained on board for the past five years because they have been willing to put their spare hours into working towards the Trust aims in helping the club. We are always willing to take new blood on board but in the past people have been reticent in coming forward. Yes you are right I am up for re-election shortly but I am sure the membership would not give up the three percent on that basis lololololol.

 

If not re-elected and that is for the membership to decide, a new chairman would evolve for the Trust.

 

As it stands I am more than happy to fulfill my promises to fans when I started the job. On the 3 percent issue I note your comments that are not dis-similiar to the many phone calls I have received from members.

 

The initiative is with the owners to come forward with proposals that the membership can consider and to date discussions have not yet started as to what these might be.

 

Sorry about the result today .

 

Regards

 

Barry

 

I think if you asked Simon Corney he would say the money belonged to the club in the first instance. That being the bulk from the match. Whether I agree or not is not the point. there is not a cat in hells chance would I vote for the trust's 3% to be given away, however I also believe the club board is quite happy to have you as the trust's board member and maybe not the next should you fail in re-election. Again that's not suggesting I would wish another in your place. I would vote on the candidates manifesto's.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Lags

[Barryowen]

I think if you asked Simon Corney he would say the money belonged to the club in the first instance. That being the bulk from the match. Whether I agree or not is not the point. there is not a cat in hells chance would I vote for the trust's 3% to be given away, however I also believe the club board is quite happy to have you as the trust's board member and maybe not the next should you fail in re-election. Again that's not suggesting I would wish another in your place. I would vote on the candidates manifesto's.

Simon is entitled to his opinion if that is the one he holds. One thing is certain the money was raised before they came involved and was not raised for their purpose to purchase or invest privately. Had the money not been held legally in trust it might well have been that it could have been swallowed up by the administration and nobody would have seen the money at all. I get quite annoyed by suggestions that have been going on for years that the money was the "clubs" as though it belonged to other persons other than the people who raised the money "the fans". Yes the fans did raise money for the club which resulted in them seeing an interest for their money. Why do you feel that the club board are quite happy to have me with them as opposed to any new member that might be elected. I am interested in the point you make.

 

 

Barry

[OldhamSheridan]

Unlie some I believe the Trusts intentions are very good. I don't follow why people would believe otherwise, but what the hell... (and I, myself, applaude your committment Barry & Co.)

 

Straight question: Where would the Trust stand with any takeover as suggested*?

*A 50/50 between private owners and loss of the 3%.

[boundaryblue80]

Simon is entitled to his opinion if that is the one he holds. One thing is certain the money was raised before they came involved and was not raised for their purpose to purchase or invest privately. Had the money not been held legally in trust it might well have been that it could have been swallowed up by the administration and nobody would have seen the money at all. I get quite annoyed by suggestions that have been going on for years that the money was the "clubs" as though it belonged to other persons other than the people who raised the money "the fans". Yes the fans did raise money for the club which resulted in them seeing an interest for their money. Why do you feel that the club board are quite happy to have me with them as opposed to any new member that might be elected. I am interested in the point you make.

 

 

Barry

 

I cannot back up the above comments any stronger than Barry has stated here. That money was raised well before TTA arrived. The reason I can't back up Barry's comments enough is because it was money which became a big bone of contention for myself. Not going into why as it's old news now and not worth airing but it was 1-million percent the case that this money was raised well before we were saved! And is the Trusts to do what they wish with it (and if they mis-use it, then it's members hold its directors accountable for this.) As things stand, they made the right moves with it and I don't think anybody would disagree one bit with that.

Edited March 22, 2009 by boundaryblue80

[Lags]

Simon is entitled to his opinion if that is the one he holds. One thing is certain the money was raised before they came involved and was not raised for their purpose to purchase or invest privately. Had the money not been held legally in trust it might well have been that it could have been swallowed up by the administration and nobody would have seen the money at all. I get quite annoyed by suggestions that have been going on for years that the money was the "clubs" as though it belonged to other persons other than the people who raised the money "the fans". Yes the fans did raise money for the club which resulted in them seeing an interest for their money. Why do you feel that the club board are quite happy to have me with them as opposed to any new member that might be elected. I am interested in the point you make.

 

 

Barry

 

Because quite simply they are happy with the way things are given the Trust as 3% and a right to the boardroom. They also have no say what so ever who the trust membership may vote into the seat and thrust upon the boardroom. By the way brothers this is not in any shape or form a grumble regarding Barry's or the trust's involvement or actions. So let me make that clear. Incidently as you suggest Barry it is Simon's entitlement to hold his view, however you kinda indicate you don't know what that view is, is that true you don't really know? I'll go on record and state I believe (with good reason) he does kinda feel it was the clubs money anyway. To be fair he as a point, likewise it would be true to say the match was held prior to TTA taking control and that the money would most likely have disappeared into the black hole had it not gone to the Trust.

 

[oafc0000]

I back TTA without question but to give up the Trusts 3%...no chance.

 

This sort of attitude worries me! No chance? Even if it was right for the club ?

[real]

Simon is entitled to his opinion if that is the one he holds. One thing is certain the money was raised before they came involved and was not raised for their purpose to purchase or invest privately. Had the money not been held legally in trust it might well have been that it could have been swallowed up by the administration and nobody would have seen the money at all. I get quite annoyed by suggestions that have been going on for years that the money was the "clubs" as though it belonged to other persons other than the people who raised the money "the fans". Yes the fans did raise money for the club which resulted in them seeing an interest for their money. Why do you feel that the club board are quite happy to have me with them as opposed to any new member that might be elected. I am interested in the point you make.

 

 

Barry

 

Barry, this isn't mean to be a criticism, but I think this post sums up what goes wrong on here. I read lags's post as being supportive of the trust and of your role. This post reads (to me at least) like you've taken it differently. Now in this case it's not a problem, as you (seem) to be agreeing with each other, but sometimes it ends up in a messy argument.

I think the Q & A style is the best way for things to be done. And for people to accept that the trust board member cannot rant and rave on here about the clubs decisions. They should be putting forward the fans views in the boardroom, coming to a joint decision with the board and then standing behind that decision, which is what almost always happens. People need to accept that this is the way a board member has to behave.

[oafc0000]

Would TTA be so accomedating if the Trust elect a new person for the club board every year or 2 ?

 

Its about a balance though... The TTA should trust and respect anyone the trust puts forward otherwise the whole exercise is pointless...

 

I am not saying I want a new fan on the board every 2 years... But the current one has sat for 5 years now!! So for the past five years the "fans view" has been one voice. As nice and as hard working Barry is he certainly dosent repersent my view points on all things latics. Now this is fine but at some point you would hope someone who shares your views, or at least a different set of views, gets chance to have a crack.

 

This obviously relies on someone else stepping forward which dosent look like it is going to happen. I have menthioned to some people about giving it a shot but most people feel they wouldnt stand a chance as their is a view point there is a bit of "boys for the jobs" mentaility ticking over within the trust.

 

Personally I think you should not be able to sit for more than four years. This keeps both the postion and the trust fresh and would help to stop this view its just jobs for the boys etc.... Most of all it would bring a fresh prospective to the board!

Edited March 22, 2009 by oafc0000

[Guest sheridans_world]

I ask a question now, If I was to organise before a game a forum where fans can attend and ask questions to Barry and others in one of the sponsor boxes would peopel attend ? The bar would be open and we might even through in some crisps and sandwiches

Real, I quote Wardle from earlier, would people be interested in this? The Trust have tried this sort of thing in the past, with little success. We are willing to try again if members want to attend.

[Guest sheridans_world]

Its about a balance though... The TTA should trust and respect anyone the trust puts forward otherwise the whole exercise is pointless...

 

I am not saying I want a new fan on the board every 2 years... But the current one has sat for 5 years now!! So for the past five years the "fans view" has been one voice. As nice and as hard working Barry is he certainly dosent repersent my view points on all things latics. Now this is fine but at some point you would hope someone who shares your views, or at least a different set of views, gets chance to have a crack.

 

This obviously relies on someone else stepping forward which dosent look like it is going to happen. I have menthioned to some people about giving it a shot but most people feel they wouldnt stand a chance as their is a view point there is a bit of "boys for the jobs" mentaility ticking over within the trust.

 

Personally I think you should not be able to sit for more than four years. This keeps both the postion and the trust fresh and would help to stop this view its just jobs for the boys etc....

The job of director of a football club is no walk in the park. You need a hell of a lot of time to do it, hence why Barry does it. You wont be able to hold down a full-time job at the same time.

 

Besides, trust members have a say at who is elected. Come to the Trust AGM tommorow.

[oafc0000]

The job of director of a football club is no walk in the park. You need a hell of a lot of time to do it, hence why Barry does it. You wont be able to hold down a full-time job at the same time.

 

My understanding is that you need to attend board meetings and put forward your point of view, outside of that what other requirements are there ? What other duties does Barry do ?

 

Besides, trust members have a say at who is elected. Come to the Trust AGM tommorow.

 

I cant for the same reasons I can no longer make night games

Edited March 22, 2009 by oafc0000

[Senor_Coconut]

My understanding is that you need to attend board meetings, outside of that what other requirements are there ? What other duties does Barry do ?

 

 

 

I cant for the same reasons I can no longer make night games

 

 

 

Trips to visit our new star player in HMP Scrubs?

[oafc0000]

Trips to visit our new star player in HMP Scrubs?

 

Well exactly... That was never in Barrys remit and was very much an extra... Certainly not a requirement for the job...

[Barryowen]

I fully respect Lagsy and the points he was making. I fully understood mainly what he was saying. I am aware that there is a view held about the ownership of the money and it is not a view held by me.

 

The respect you gain to being a Director amongst your colleagues and everyone else is not a right and as has to be worked for. Believe me this can take a great deal of time.

 

I would not attempt to list the work that is done on a daily basis that involves the Directors who work very closely as a team. Alan Hardy for instance very rarely does less than a 12 hour day.

 

I agree that the question and answer format that we did recently is the best way forward but this particular subject did need some comment from myself to the members at this early stage.

 

Regards

 

 

Barry

[boundaryblue80]

This sort of attitude worries me! No chance? Even if it was right for the club ?

I can't think of any circumstance whereby it would ever be right for the club. If new potential owners were to be dead against a trust holding 3% shares then I wouldn't believe they'd be right for the club whatsoever. No matter what cash or promises they had. CM will always be the example of this and a lesson sorely learned from.

[Lookers_Carl]

I can't think of any circumstance whereby it would ever be right for the club. If new potential owners were to be dead against a trust holding 3% shares then I wouldn't believe they'd be right for the club whatsoever. No matter what cash or promises they had. CM will always be the example of this and a lesson sorely learned from.

 

Exactly, and as Daz pointed out before, if any new investor so badly wanted rid of the trusts 3% stake and didnt want the trust involved in the day to day running of the club, one would have to ask why? What does he want to hide?

[opinions4u]

I can't think of any circumstance whereby it would ever be right for the club. If new potential owners were to be dead against a trust holding 3% shares then I wouldn't believe they'd be right for the club whatsoever. No matter what cash or promises they had. CM will always be the example of this and a lesson sorely learned from.

You can see the problem the Trust stake gives a potential new investor though.

 

Look at the potential shareholdings:

 

TTA 48.5%

Great Uncle Sugar Daddy Bulgaria 48.5%

Keep The Faith 3%

 

This actually gives a huge amount of power to the smallest shareholder.

 

The case to give up the current shares in return for, say, 0% preference shares that retain a capital value and guarantee a seat on the board in return for a genuine investor should not be ignored.

 

The case for surrendering the seat on the board? There isn't one.

 

if any new investor so badly wanted rid of the trusts 3% stake and didnt want the trust involved in the day to day running of the club, one would have to ask why?

Absolutely the right question. Edited March 22, 2009 by opinions4u

[oafc0000]

You can see the problem the Trust stake gives a potential new investor though.

 

Look at the potential shareholdings:

 

TTA 48.5%

Great Uncle Sugar Daddy Bulgaria 48.5%

Keep The Faith 3%

 

This actually gives a huge amount of power to the smallest shareholder.

 

The case to give up the current shares in return for, say, 0% preference shares that retain a capital value and guarantee a seat on the board in return for a genuine investor should not be ignored.

 

The case for surrendering the seat on the board? There isn't one.

 

Absolutely the right question.

 

Spot on! The 3% holding could cause a big issue for any future development. Its totally wrong to say no way never... What is right for the club is what is important. I think the Trust should be prepared to sell if the right offer is on the table.

Edited March 22, 2009 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

I would not attempt to list the work that is done on a daily basis that involves the Directors who work very closely as a team. Alan Hardy for instance very rarely does less than a 12 hour day.

 

Well how about the work done by you ?

 

It has been suggested by SW that your position is a full time one and could not be undertaken part time and can only realistically be done by you. Which I find very confusing. Are you expected to do more than attend board meetings ? Isn't that your remit ?

 

I am very interested to know what your daily activities are and what would be expected of someone who would stand against you. Its a little vague at the moment.

Edited March 22, 2009 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Just wondering if Sheridans_World or Barry could answer these questions ?

[laticsrblue]

TTA 48.5%

Great Uncle Sugar Daddy Bulgaria 48.5%

Keep The Faith 3%

 

This actually gives a huge amount of power to the smallest shareholder.

 

THe 3% only has power if the other 2 disagree. I would have thought that an unofficial out of boardroom discussion between them could easily scupper anything the fan's representative was against.

Even with just TTA in charge the 3% holding is worthless, the fan's representative on the board can easily be faced with a virtual fait accompli in the boardroom on any decision. That's why their presence there is nothing more than a good will gesture to the fans by TTA. It doesn't stop anything happening or give us any pre warning of anything happening that we don't agree with.