Barry Owen role in the club

[Forte_Baby]

Question ever since he has become the fans representative on the board has there ever been any sort of election for a fellow supporters to either take on or run against him for the role?

 

If the answer is no why not? surly it is in the clubs best interest to allow others to try rather than just have a closed shop and someone who just jumps everytime the owners say how high?

 

Maybe the owners would listen to the fans more if fresh face took on the role.

Edited May 22, 2010 by oafctom

[opinions4u]

There have been elections, although some have questioned the publicity and the process.

 

Have a wander round the Trust web site and you might find something.

[Forte_Baby]

The website says nothing to answer my question. Surly like any other fans board, trade union, council, organisation or board of directors? there should be elections of some sort.

Edited May 22, 2010 by oafctom

[opinions4u]

The website says nothing to answer my question. Surly like any other fans board, trade union, council, organisation or board of directors?

I don't understand what this means.

[Forte_Baby]

I don't understand what this means.

 

RE EDITED.

 

[opinions4u]

there should be elections of some sort.

There have been.

 

I'm sure those involved in the Trust will explain the detail if they've not put it on their web site.

[Stevie_J]

Question ever since he has become the fans representative on the board has there ever been any sort of election for a fellow supporters to either take on or run against him for the role?

 

If the answer is no why not? surly it is in the clubs best interest to allow others to try rather than just have a closed shop and someone who just jumps everytime the owners say how high?

 

Maybe the owners would listen to the fans more if fresh face took on the role.

I shouldn't worry, this question has now been asked enough times that I expect Barry will have some competition next time around. However, I then expect the club will minimise the role by sidelining his replacement to the greatest extent they can get away with, if they feel that they've been landed with someone who might question their judgement.

[Forte_Baby]

I shouldn't worry, this question has now been asked enough times that I expect Barry will have some competition next time around. However, I then expect the club will minimise the role by sidelining his replacement to the greatest extent they can get away with, if they feel that they've been landed with someone who might question their judgement.

 

Part the reason i think a fresh face is needed being on a board is someone who raises issues, someone who will challenge there judgement who wants the best for the clubs and fans, rather than someone who can just tell his ex work mates on the golf course oh look am on the board of the club.

 

To be fair by the time his role does come up for relection i suspect the TTA will proberly long gone.

[oafc0000]

Who cares any more... The role stands for nothing, has given us the fans nothing and will continue to give us the fans nothing...

 

If people cared enough it would of been resolved years ago but it hasn't...

Edited May 22, 2010 by oafc0000

[Crusoe]

What exactly does anyone think Barry — or anyone else for that matter, it's nothing personal (and I dislike the crap he has to put up with on here) — can achieve in the role? "Challenging" judgement means what, exactly? TTA own the club, TTA pay the wages, TTA appoint the staff; what exactly does a director representing the fans have any say in? I can totally understand why fans want an elected voice, but how does anyone think it happens?

[Lookers_Carl]

Right will try to shed some light on this before I call it a night.

 

Regarding Barry's role. Barry's role is a dual one, one of chairman of Trust Oldham, and the Trust Oldham representative whom sits on the board of directors at Oldham Athletic AFC (2004). Contrary to some of the crap that has been spouted by some, Barry pays for his season ticket in full, and does not draw a salary of any kind. As for the purpose they serve at the club, I do not know all of Barry's duties at the club. One role I do know he fulfills is that as a former police officer, Barry negotiates the cost of policing with GM police.

 

Regarding this comment

 

Part the reason i think a fresh face is needed being on a board is someone who raises issues, someone who will challenge there judgement who wants the best for the clubs and fans, rather than someone who can just tell his ex work mates on the golf course oh look am on the board of the club

 

Fully recognise Barry is not everyone's cup of tea, and I am not going to fight Barry's battles for him, he is capable of doing that himself. I will make two points regarding this however

- 'Someone who wants what's best for the club'. Oafctom I think you need to recognise that many fans have a very wide range of opinions of what constitutes 'whats best for the club', the diversity in opinions regarding the Failsworth move illustrate this. Whoever sits on the board as the Trust chair will also have their own opinions, and will do what they think is best for the club. This may not be what everyone else thinks is 'best for the club', hence regardless of who sits as chair of the trust, they will not be able to please everybody.

- 'raises issues, someone who will challenge there judgement'. If this is justified then yes, and I am sure Barry does this when he feels it is justified. However challenging issues for the sake of challenging them which screams 'look at meee, look at meeeeeeeeee, I'm challenging you because I can' does nothing to build bridges and wont get anyone anywhere.

 

Regarding the election process, again as I understand it, we hold an annual AGM. The AGM this year has not been held yet but we are close to calling one, and will do once we get our accounts back from the accountants. Directors are normally elected for a term of three years. If someone wishes to be co-opted as a director at the AGM, they will need to provide us with written notice of their intentions to stand (details will be provided once the AGM is announced). If on the night we deem the applicant suitable, then the candidate will be co-opted onto the board of directors.

 

Regarding Barry's position, barry was re-elected for another three years in either the last AGM or the one before (both of which were advertised in the program and the Oldham Evening Chronicle two weeks before the event, as this up and coming one will). During my own time as a Trust Director, I have not yet seen anyone challenge for Barrys position so I do not know how it works precisely, although I will try to get you an answer from some of the more experienced Trust Directors than myself. However, I do believe that anyone who wishes to stand for the chair of the Trust needs to already be a director, although don't hold me to this as I am not 100 percent sure, but I will get the answers, and I will get something put up on the website once I know them.

 

At the moment we have nine active directors, and we have room for others if anyone is interested in becoming a director, who feels they can bring something to the table, then I will gladly co-opt them onto the trust oldham board of directors.

 

Hope this has been of some help, now I'm off to bed, so will bid you all good night.

[Stevie_J]

What exactly does anyone think Barry — or anyone else for that matter, it's nothing personal (and I dislike the crap he has to put up with on here) — can achieve in the role? "Challenging" judgement means what, exactly? TTA own the club, TTA pay the wages, TTA appoint the staff; what exactly does a director representing the fans have any say in? I can totally understand why fans want an elected voice, but how does anyone think it happens?

I agree. The role is limited in that respect just as it should be. But, if there's any point to Barry's role, it should be (i) to feed the fans' voice into the boardroom and (ii) feed back to the fans what's happening that's of interest and which can be reasonably disclose. Neither currently happens.

[Crusoe]

Frankly, and bluntly: I don't believe the Trust has the power to do much with the club, therefore whatever communication happens is at the whim of TTA. I don't mean to disparage the time or effort the Trust puts in, because I don't believe anyone would do that unless they loved this club. But, really, I think half of the problem with the lack of fans' engagement is that we all know, deep down, that TTA make the calls.

[garcon]

One could argue that there's something not quite right when I, as a fan, trust the Club Chairman, owners and Chief Exec significantly more than I trust the "Fans representative on the Board" and Trust (oh the irony ) Chairman.

[Ackey]

One could argue that there's something not quite right when I, as a fan, trust the Club Chairman, owners and Chief Exec significantly more than I trust the "Fans representative on the Board" and Trust (oh the irony ) Chairman.

What have you done to change that?

[garcon]

Not much. Apart from stop going, which doesn't really help...

 

As I've said before, I've tried and seemingly failed to joing the Trust a couple of times, so I have at least attempted the option of seeing and trying to change things from the inside.

 

Sooner or later I expect something will happen at the club that will change my current position. At the moment, the way I see it, the club and I don't really need each other.

[oafc0000]

Sooner or later I expect something will happen at the club that will change my current position. At the moment, the way I see it, the club and I don't really need each other.

 

Similar feeling here...

[Who was Winston DuBose]

Barry pays for his season ticket in full, and does not draw a salary of any kind.

 

 

Aye I would pay for a season tickets for a parking space in the directors car park and all the free food and jollies.

 

For me a board supporters repersentative is a ordinary Joe who will put views forward for supporters.

 

Many dont see Barry as a ordinary Joe - he himself has said the he believe he would be invited to be a board member anyway even if he wasnt the trust representative.

 

So for a lot of people he does not represent the supporters (Trust) but the board are using Baryy to stop a supporter getting into the board room. It is comfortable for the board to have "one of theirs" in the role.

 

Simples Barry resigns from role a trust representative and is invited by the board to become a member in his own right and a new Trustee is voted at the AGM into the role - then supporters really get two representatives on the board.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Who was Winston DuBose

[De_La_Vega]

I'm interested in a point you make Lookers Carl, regarding Barry not pleasing everyone within his role.

 

That is the crux of the issue; Barry is not there to have any opinion on the club in an official capacity because his role is at the behest of the fans and it is to be OUR voice on the board. This, I feel, is the danger and lies at the root of most of the distress and disharmony caused by his presence.

 

I am not anti-Barry Owen, I have never met him but I am sure that he is an Oldham fan who puts time in to help the running of the club out of the goodness of his heart. To be fair, the issues should not include his personality or his preferences because it is the position that is being questioned and not the guy who sits in it. There is no doubt in my mind having seen his posts that Barry has come to believe that he is on the board as a kind of right and that his person matters rather than his position; that is why I feel he is fundamentally failing in his role.

 

What the people who have put their money into the Trust require and deserve is someone who is held accountable to the whole club and who does not hide behind the ideas that the boardroom has its own code and somethings need to stay within it. When you raise cash to be plunged into the club, you buy the right to know these things and it is galling to be patronised by the very person that has been elected by your endeavours.

 

I'm aware that the last comments there will look like an attack on Barry Owen again, but they are not. It is the fact that a facilitation role, an intermediary and message-boy (which is what the Trust rep should be) has been allowed to grow into a member of the heirarchy. That is unacceptable and should be rectified because I know very few people who put their hands in their pockets in order to see this happen.

[real]

I'm interested in a point you make Lookers Carl, regarding Barry not pleasing everyone within his role.

 

That is the crux of the issue; Barry is not there to have any opinion on the club in an official capacity because his role is at the behest of the fans and it is to be OUR voice on the board. This, I feel, is the danger and lies at the root of most of the distress and disharmony caused by his presence.

 

I am not anti-Barry Owen, I have never met him but I am sure that he is an Oldham fan who puts time in to help the running of the club out of the goodness of his heart. To be fair, the issues should not include his personality or his preferences because it is the position that is being questioned and not the guy who sits in it. There is no doubt in my mind having seen his posts that Barry has come to believe that he is on the board as a kind of right and that his person matters rather than his position; that is why I feel he is fundamentally failing in his role.

 

What the people who have put their money into the Trust require and deserve is someone who is held accountable to the whole club and who does not hide behind the ideas that the boardroom has its own code and somethings need to stay within it. When you raise cash to be plunged into the club, you buy the right to know these things and it is galling to be patronised by the very person that has been elected by your endeavours.

I'm aware that the last comments there will look like an attack on Barry Owen again, but they are not. It is the fact that a facilitation role, an intermediary and message-boy (which is what the Trust rep should be) has been allowed to grow into a member of the heirarchy. That is unacceptable and should be rectified because I know very few people who put their hands in their pockets in order to see this happen.

 

The problem with the bit in bold is that the first reponsibility of a board member in a company is to act for the good of that company. The only way for the trust board member to be able to divulge everything they knew, would be to exclude them from some aspects of board meetings.

The board are likely to disscuss wages, dissciplinary matters, the season' budget etc. If the trust board member reveled ssuch things it could damage the club both financially and reputationally.

 

As for the question of overall accountability and the use of personal opinions, it perhaps raises the same issue a the election of MPs. They are not elected to follow the direct wishes of the electorate (which would amount to little more than a puppet, and require endless referenda) but are elected to represent their constituents using their own judgement. On the basis of this style of repreentation, you have to accept that you will not agree with everything that is done, and may strongly disagree, but unless their is someone else who you think would have better judgement then you are stuck with who you've got.

 

[opinions4u]

The problem with the bit in bold is that the first reponsibility of a board member in a company is to act for the good of that company. The only way for the trust board member to be able to divulge everything they knew, would be to exclude them from some aspects of board meetings.

The board are likely to disscuss wages, dissciplinary matters, the season' budget etc. If the trust board member reveled ssuch things it could damage the club both financially and reputationally.

 

As for the question of overall accountability and the use of personal opinions, it perhaps raises the same issue a the election of MPs. They are not elected to follow the direct wishes of the electorate (which would amount to little more than a puppet, and require endless referenda) but are elected to represent their constituents using their own judgement. On the basis of this style of repreentation, you have to accept that you will not agree with everything that is done, and may strongly disagree, but unless their is someone else who you think would have better judgement then you are stuck with who you've got.

Well put.

 

Which is why The Trust should ensure their election process:

 

1) Is preceded by a membership drive.

2) Is supported by accurate membership records.

3) Includes a well communicated request for nominations.

4) Provides the membership a reasonable timeframe to vote.

 

Do they do these things?

[Lookers_Carl]

Ok lads/lasses

 

I am putting something together on how directors and the chair are elected for our website. I just need to circulate it around other directors to make sure what I have written is accurate, then I will put it up on here and on the website

[leeslover]

Ok lads/lasses

 

I am putting something together on how directors and the chair are elected for our website. I just need to circulate it around other directors to make sure what I have written is accurate, then I will put it up on here and on the website

Carl, I'm really not meaning this as a dig at you, and I do appreciate that you are working hard to make the Trust something more attractive to potential members (of whom believe it or not I remain one). It is astonishing though that an organisation should have to ask around itself to know how it appoints it's own officials. A Student Union Society could tell you how it does it as it would have a constitution in line with the Charities Commission and it's relevant union, do we not have the same level of procedure for a body that manages a £300k+ share in a business?

 

As a first point of contact, I would ask the person who took the chair when the Chairman position was being settled, he/she must have had guidelines, or else this is starting to look less like a farce and more like something of extremely dubious corporate governance.

[Lookers_Carl]

Carl, I'm really not meaning this as a dig at you, and I do appreciate that you are working hard to make the Trust something more attractive to potential members (of whom believe it or not I remain one). It is astonishing though that an organisation should have to ask around itself to know how it appoints it's own officials. A Student Union Society could tell you how it does it as it would have a constitution in line with the Charities Commission and it's relevant union, do we not have the same level of procedure for a body that manages a £300k+ share in a business?

As a first point of contact, I would ask the person who took the chair when the Chairman position was being settled, he/she must have had guidelines, or else this is starting to look less like a farce and more like something of extremely dubious corporate governance.

 

Thats exactly who I am checking it with LL before I put anything onto the website, I will be checking it with our legal director Peter Hegginbotham. I am reasonably sure that what I have written is accurate but want to check with Peter first, as he was involved with the trust when it was founded in 2006 being the first chairman

[De_La_Vega]

The problem with the bit in bold is that the first reponsibility of a board member in a company is to act for the good of that company. The only way for the trust board member to be able to divulge everything they knew, would be to exclude them from some aspects of board meetings.

The board are likely to disscuss wages, dissciplinary matters, the season' budget etc. If the trust board member reveled ssuch things it could damage the club both financially and reputationally.

 

As for the question of overall accountability and the use of personal opinions, it perhaps raises the same issue a the election of MPs. They are not elected to follow the direct wishes of the electorate (which would amount to little more than a puppet, and require endless referenda) but are elected to represent their constituents using their own judgement. On the basis of this style of repreentation, you have to accept that you will not agree with everything that is done, and may strongly disagree, but unless their is someone else who you think would have better judgement then you are stuck with who you've got.

The bit about Parliament is pertinent, but I would argue in favour of my point. The Freedom of Information Act puts the majority of information into the public domain unless there is a compelling reason that it shouldn't be.

 

I'd say that the fundamental issue is that the info that you reference in the first paragraph is highly unlikely to impact on the club - both Stockport, Exeter and Ebbsfleet have all got fans associations in place and I don't think any of those have struggled due to the availability of the information. Stockport are in trouble because the fans overspent and Ebbsfleet because interest in the My Football Club concept faded with little or no real link to the club.

 

In any event, what you say has merit but I would suggest that maybe it is proof that the concept of having this fan on the board is outmoded anyway. We know that a 3% stake buys you nothing by way of influence, so should we not pull the guy out of the boardroom and instead remodel the Trust into a sort of auditor of the club? In that way the Trust can use the 3% stake to examine the books, to sit in on Council meetings, to be consulted on major projects such as the stadium - but with a panel of appropriate members being appointed on a case-by-case basis rather than one man who we place all our faith in? I would reference that the recent visit by two members of this site to view the books was received with far greater trust and interest than any of Barry Owen's disseminations. Not, I stress, that this is an attack on BO but rather that a group approach with more open access for more people who have a bit of knowledge about the subject is more reliable than being told that "it's okay, I'm one of you and I think it is okay".