Lookers_Carl Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. I had mistakenly thought from past discussion that there were opportunities for the Trust membership to vote someone off the Trust but that no one knew about them and, consequently, no one turned up at the relevant meetings. However, I'm disappointed to hear that one would have to become a director in order to effect any such change. Nice job if you can get it! But this process stops any old maverick from appearing from nowhere and becoming chairman. And speaking as a Trust Director, I would not vote to put a fan on the board who would disagree with the owners for the sake of causing an argument, and whose only asett is 'I can shout louder than you'. I would expect anyone in the role of chair to not only bring something to the table of Trust Oldham, but to Oldham Athletic (2004) Association Football Club. Barry, with his years of experience working for Greater Manchester Police, has saved the club money on their police bills, and also played a key part in negotiating the signing of Lee Hughes. Whilst any future Trust Chairman may not have the same skillset as Barry, the point remains that as a Trust Director, I would expect them to bring something to the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 However, I'm disappointed to hear that one would have to become a director in order to effect any such change. Nice job if you can get it! As the website says on the link rick posted, at the moment we can have up to fifteen direcors. We have nine at the moment. plenty of room for fresh blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 But this process stops any old maverick from appearing from nowhere and becoming chairman. And speaking as a Trust Director, I would not vote to put a fan on the board who would disagree with the owners for the sake of causing an argument, and whose only asett is 'I can shout louder than you'. Perhaps the judgement and varied life experiences of the fans might do the same thing? And whilst we don't people on the Trust to just shout, I dare say many of us would like to think that there is space for people who don;t agree at all with the road the owners are taking us on (which I am not one of) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 The position of Trust Director is a position of Trustee not only for the role of the trust but for all fans. I have a few questions: Would the fans want someone walking off the street and taking the chair position of the Trust? If the chair position didn’t come from the directors, then where should it be elected from? If others feel they could do the position of Chair more justice why haven’t they joined the Trust Board like 25+ people have done in the past? If members voted off directors or the chair because they didn’t ‘like them’ then how long would anyone hold a position?? The old debate of Barry being the only person able to do the role is old but still valid, within the Trust, only Barry (currently) is able to be free to communicate with the club and help when needed due to his current position. Would a new chair be able to ensure he/she is free to attend meetings that due to situations at the club are called within hours? If the answer is no, then the fans rep would miss out being involved in issues and decisions. People state the Trust and Barry don’t communicate with TTA and Club the ‘needs’ of the fans so they understand ‘our’ concerns. In a way we don’t as much any longer for one good reason. www.owtb.co.uk. ! Every senior management member of the club read this site everyday. They read what concerns a cross section of fans have, who fans don’t think should be wearing the shirt or how pies and drinks run out before HT. The Trust communicates with the club daily on matters ranging from fans facilities, fans safety, ways to promote the club and many more. The Trust are not to close to the club but we are close enough to be involved. Alan, SC and Blitz will testify that many on the trust don’t lay down and have our bellies tickled. Objections are heard, considered and either taken on board or ignored, once the objections are made to the club, the trust have done what there remit ensuring that the clubs interest is taken care of and therefore the Fans interest. The cross section of Latic fans are huge, many walks of life, the members of Owtb is a clear example of that but for an aging old ex copper as some see Barry as, he represents the basic of every fans beliefs and wants for the club. Whilst many on the Trust Board don’t agree with the clubs stance on things and personal ideas, we all have to look at the bigger picture in the situation and think of one thing: What is the Best thing for the club, LONG TERM. Being a Director doesn’t mean you can change anything, the only man who can do that is Simon Blitz, OAFC is his company, club, business, toy. If Blitz wants to do something he does it, the trust is there to ask why and give notice if anything is about to happen. The trust door is always open to suggestions and meetings. In the past few months we have had 2 fans come along to meetings one is interested in joining the trust board. Opinions and new blood is the only thing that will keep the Trust fresh active and alive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jolly Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Rick One question m8, what is the trust doing for the future when TTA walk away hopefully leaving us self sufficient and a new owner hopefully buys into OAFC ? Is the trust in a position to try to buy a bigger stake in the club or will the trust be coming cap in hand asking the fans to contribute again ? or is the trust happy to always sit in the background like now ? Actually there's more than one question lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Rick One question m8, what is the trust doing for the future when TTA walk away hopefully leaving us self sufficient and a new owner hopefully buys into OAFC ? Is the trust in a position to try to buy a bigger stake in the club or will the trust be coming cap in hand asking the fans to contribute again ? or is the trust happy to always sit in the background like now ? Actually there's more than one question lol The trust have since its formation been working with people like Adrian stores link to some info and members of the Manchester Business Commerce Link to info to ensure that if OAFC was ever in the position it was in 2004, The trust and OAFC Fans would have better links with people who could help. The Trust have over the last 6 years networked with other trust and organisations to seek advise and share experiences to make any transition less worrying. The Trust do not have the funds to buy the club but we do have the basic knowledge to ensure the club would exist if the worst was to happen. Unlike Stockport, Trust Oldham have worked with the club over a long period of time to understand how a club works. This means we would be able to work with any new investment instead of having to do what Stockport did and try to run the club itself. OAFC is not able to support itself on the revenue it self creates. As a trust we have learned that a club needs structure and the right people. We would need to organise events and a new war chest but more importantly we would need to use the contacts and networks created by the trust to find new owners. OAFC needs private funding to top up the revenue stream in currently creates at BP. OAFC at a new stadium ..... That is a another story, 24/7 revenue creation means that any new owners wouldnt have to be multi-millionaires, just proven in logically business strategies ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jolly Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 The trust have since its formation been working with people like Adrian stores link to some info and members of the Manchester Business Commerce Link to info to ensure that if OAFC was ever in the position it was in 2004, The trust and OAFC Fans would have better links with people who could help. The Trust have over the last 6 years networked with other trust and organisations to seek advise and share experiences to make any transition less worrying. The Trust do not have the funds to buy the club but we do have the basic knowledge to ensure the club would exist if the worst was to happen. Unlike Stockport, Trust Oldham have worked with the club over a long period of time to understand how a club works. This means we would be able to work with any new investment instead of having to do what Stockport did and try to run the club itself. OAFC is not able to support itself on the revenue it self creates. As a trust we have learned that a club needs structure and the right people. We would need to organise events and a new war chest but more importantly we would need to use the contacts and networks created by the trust to find new owners. OAFC needs private funding to top up the revenue stream in currently creates at BP. OAFC at a new stadium ..... That is a another story, 24/7 revenue creation means that any new owners wouldnt have to be multi-millionaires, just proven in logically business strategies ! Rick, the bit in bold is what i meant, if the owners walk away leaving us self sufficient or close to it what funds do the trust have if any to buy a bigger stake in the club, if that was possible and so have more say ? if that is very little should the trust be fund raising for this potential rather than ploughing what money the trust has into the club especially if ground is broken on the new ground as this possibly gives the owners the get out they are possibly working towards ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Rick, the bit in bold is what i meant, if the owners walk away leaving us self sufficient or close to it what funds do the trust have if any to buy a bigger stake in the club, if that was possible and so have more say ? if that is very little should the trust be fund raising for this potential rather than ploughing what money the trust has into the club especially if ground is broken on the new ground as this possibly gives the owners the get out they are possibly working towards ? The Trust do not have the funds to buy the club but we do have the basic knowledge to ensure the club would exist if the worst was to happen. Unlike Stockport, Trust Oldham have worked with the club over a long period of time to understand how a club works. This means we would be able to work with any new investment instead of having to do what Stockport did and try to run the club itself. Raising funds when the crap as hit the fan was a task done by many with the emotion of the situation to great effect. Raising funds when there are no problems is a greater task and one that is almost impossible in the present climates. If OAFC was left self-sufficient, the club would be more appealing to many different investers, some of whom may be local that with the right connection would be indentified more quickly than last time. Anybody doing due diligence on the clubs books at a new stadium compaired to now would be more likely to make an offer for the club. We would love to raise more funds that is way we ask for more help from fans to bring us ideas and help at events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Who cares any more... The role stands for nothing, has given us the fans nothing and will continue to give us the fans nothing... . Just seen this !!!! Wtf, what complete what complete tripe ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 But this process stops any old maverick from appearing from nowhere and becoming chairman. And speaking as a Trust Director, I would not vote to put a fan on the board who would disagree with the owners for the sake of causing an argument, and whose only asett is 'I can shout louder than you'. I would expect anyone in the role of chair to not only bring something to the table of Trust Oldham, but to Oldham Athletic (2004) Association Football Club. Barry, with his years of experience working for Greater Manchester Police, has saved the club money on their police bills, and also played a key part in negotiating the signing of Lee Hughes. Whilst any future Trust Chairman may not have the same skillset as Barry, the point remains that as a Trust Director, I would expect them to bring something to the table. Of course no reasonable fan would vote for someone who was inclined to disagree with the owners without reason. No one suggested that and that isn't the only possible alternative to Barry. Many, though, might wish to see him replaced by man who would speak out against the owners if and when it was appropriate. To me, that should be the Trust's primary function. I'm not naive enough to think TTA & co would necessarily pay too much heed but it'd be nice to think at least the point was being made on behalf the fans at the times that needed to be done. I have no interest in discussing Barry's credentials here, although, for the record he seems like a decent enough bloke who isn't cut out for the job, but the answers I was trying to glean were those around the opportunities for the Trust membership to elect and/or remove its directors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Of course no reasonable fan would vote for someone who was inclined to disagree with the owners without reason. No one suggested that and that isn't the only possible alternative to Barry. Many, though, might wish to see him replaced by man who would speak out against the owners if and when it was appropriate. To me, that should be the Trust's primary function. I'm not naive enough to think TTA & co would necessarily pay too much heed but it'd be nice to think at least the point was being made on behalf the fans at the times that needed to be done. I have no interest in discussing Barry's credentials here, although, for the record he seems like a decent enough bloke who isn't cut out for the job, but the answers I was trying to glean were those around the opportunities for the Trust membership to elect and/or remove its directors. which should of been answered by now I think ? As for the 1st part, why should the primary concern of the Trust to speak out against the TTA ?? The primary concern is that OAFC is here in years to come, not just tomorrow. Barry and others on the Trust are far from 'YES MEN' What points do you feel that the fans rep on the board hasn't put accross? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 The position of Trust Director is a position of Trustee not only for the role of the trust but for all fans. I have a few questions: Would the fans want someone walking off the street and taking the chair position of the Trust? Depends what you mean by that. An everyday bloke off the street is fine as long he's a Latics fan with something to offer who's elected by the Trust members. If the chair position didn’t come from the directors, then where should it be elected from? If others feel they could do the position of Chair more justice why haven’t they joined the Trust Board like 25+ people have done in the past? Personally, I see no problem with this. It makes sense. If members voted off directors or the chair because they didn’t ‘like them’ then how long would anyone hold a position?? It not about liking them, per se, but about whether people think they're the right people to represent them. Again, I have no issue with a fixed term of election, although three years is a long, long time in football. The old debate of Barry being the only person able to do the role is old but still valid, within the Trust, only Barry (currently) is able to be free to communicate with the club and help when needed due to his current position. I find the idea that the Trust's main man is deemed the only option pretty depressing. Would a new chair be able to ensure he/she is free to attend meetings that due to situations at the club are called within hours? If the answer is no, then the fans rep would miss out being involved in issues and decisions. Clearly this has to be a consideration in appointing a chairman but it doesn't affect the discussion regarding how people's positions on the board are managed. People state the Trust and Barry don’t communicate with TTA and Club the ‘needs’ of the fans so they understand ‘our’ concerns. In a way we don’t as much any longer for one good reason. www.owtb.co.uk. ! Every senior management member of the club read this site everyday. They read what concerns a cross section of fans have, who fans don’t think should be wearing the shirt or how pies and drinks run out before HT. All true but the Trust Chairman's role as an OAFC director is to be right in there, representing the fanbase, when decisions are being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 which should of been answered by now I think ? As for the 1st part, why should the primary concern of the Trust to speak out against the TTA ?? The primary concern is that OAFC is here in years to come, not just tomorrow. Barry and others on the Trust are far from 'YES MEN' What points do you feel that the fans rep on the board hasn't put accross? Fair point regarding the long-term future of the club. What I was getting at, in a poorly phrased way, was that the primary function of the Trust's position on the club's board should be to represent the fans,even when it goes against the owners. I still think there are questions around the election of the Trust's directors, such as where are the Rules (as defined in that link you gave me)? Am I right in thinking if Barry were not re-elected to the board, when his position comes to election, his fellow directors could co-opt him back to the board? And am I also right to take from the info on the website that, if someone puts themselves forward for election to the Trust board, and the Chairman doesn't like the look of him, he can kibosh his nomination? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 The position of Trust Director is a position of Trustee not only for the role of the trust but for all fans. I have a few questions: Would the fans want someone walking off the street and taking the chair position of the Trust? Depends what you mean by that. An everyday bloke off the street is fine as long he's a Latics fan with something to offer who's elected by the Trust members. Someone couldnt walk off the street with no experince of working with the club and be trusted by the club. The right person would need to prove themself not only to the club but the trust board. Information that the chair position would hold in regards to the club isnt going to be made available withouit an relationship being bridged If the chair position didn’t come from the directors, then where should it be elected from? If others feel they could do the position of Chair more justice why haven’t they joined the Trust Board like 25+ people have done in the past? Personally, I see no problem with this. It makes sense. If members voted off directors or the chair because they didn’t ‘like them’ then how long would anyone hold a position?? It not about liking them, per se, but about whether people think they're the right people to represent them. Again, I have no issue with a fixed term of election, although three years is a long, long time in football. IMO it is, many people dont like Barry, and make opinions with this is mind. 3 years maybe a long time in football but in building connections in business and networking. Gordon Brown was the same sort of character imo - did a job many didnt want to do themselves yet disliked because how they did it. Representation is not only a voice for the fans it is listening to them as well and that is what happens daily with the help of Owtb. The old debate of Barry being the only person able to do the role is old but still valid, within the Trust, only Barry (currently) is able to be free to communicate with the club and help when needed due to his current position. I find the idea that the Trust's main man is deemed the only option pretty depressing. Agree but there are plenty shouting and screaming that they could do better and things should be done another way, yet when asked to help or join they say NO Would a new chair be able to ensure he/she is free to attend meetings that due to situations at the club are called within hours? If the answer is no, then the fans rep would miss out being involved in issues and decisions. Clearly this has to be a consideration in appointing a chairman but it doesn't affect the discussion regarding how people's positions on the board are managed. But is does. Some directors cant make all meetings, some can only offer services. The role each person takes on is managed by their free time and family committments People state the Trust and Barry don’t communicate with TTA and Club the ‘needs’ of the fans so they understand ‘our’ concerns. In a way we don’t as much any longer for one good reason. www.owtb.co.uk. ! Every senior management member of the club read this site everyday. They read what concerns a cross section of fans have, who fans don’t think should be wearing the shirt or how pies and drinks run out before HT. All true but the Trust Chairman's role as an OAFC director is to be right in there, representing the fanbase, when decisions are being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Fair point regarding the long-term future of the club. What I was getting at, in a poorly phrased way, was that the primary function of the Trust's position on the club's board should be to represent the fans,even when it goes against the owners. I still think there are questions around the election of the Trust's directors, such as where are the Rules (as defined in that link you gave me)? Am I right in thinking if Barry were not re-elected to the board, when his position comes to election, his fellow directors could co-opt him back to the board? And am I also right to take from the info on the website that, if someone puts themselves forward for election to the Trust board, and the Chairman doesn't like the look of him, he can kibosh his nomination? Its is this representation of the fans comment that I'm confused with?? Barry and other trust directors (including myself) have expressed concerns with the club and TTA on many occassions. Our positions are that of trustee. We do our best to ensure the fans and club are looked after. Dirty linen isnt cleaned in public. If it was broadcast everytime the trust disagreed with matters would we have a relationship that we currently have? Make no mistake, if it came to early light that a major problem was on the arisen that that would be a different matter. Anyone can stand to be on the trust, if an applicant was made and it was not in the best interest of the trust then yes the chair could veto that application. This is due to previous applications being made to join the trust that were not followed through Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 I may have the wrong end of the stick, and/or I may be rehashing questions, but what does being a fully paid-up member of the Trust entitle you to in terms of having a say on the hierarchy of the organisation? Essentially, what is the point in being a member if you have no say in who represents you? (If this is the case, of course.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I may have the wrong end of the stick, and/or I may be rehashing questions, but what does being a fully paid-up member of the Trust entitle you to in terms of having a say on the hierarchy of the organisation? Essentially, what is the point in being a member if you have no say in who represents you? (If this is the case, of course.) This is about where I am coming from also. It looks to me like the Trust Directors are pretty much a self-sustaining body who then appoint the Chairman from themselves. It comes as no surprise that it apparently hasn't concerned them for several years that they don't even know who their members are, after all, if you aren't on the Board, what does it matter? Talking about what a great job Barry or anyone else does is totally missing the point and speaks volumes about why it is a failing organisation, the fans are not idiots who are happy to doff their cap in the knowledge that their superiors are taking care of everything for them. It's the same attitude that leads to Barry thinking he can dish out tellings off as and when he feels like it. Anyone else a member of an organisation whose Chairman does that to members? Oh, and any ansers to my questions around the due process of Barry's election, or did it just go through on the nod? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 What I fail to understand is why the Trust have a man on the board anyway though. Surely this is just a sop to peoples' egos because a Director with 3% to back him up is essentially nothing. I know I have made this point below but I have thought further on it given a number of the issues raised. Firstly, the idea that a Trust Chairman needs to have a useful skill for the club to utilise is absolute rubbish. The person of the representative is a complete red herring, as the Trust is not electing a representative so much as a mouthpiece - frankly I care not one jot about the opinions of the voice on the board because if I pay subs then it is my opinion that he should be expressing (in a balance with the considerations of other paying members). This I feel is the issue that has been lost in the current cult of personality; if we want to do things the current way then what the current incumbent thinks for is best for Latics should be laid out for all to see on the website or on here, and then he can be challenged where appropriate. I raised the issue earlier about freedom of information and Real was good enough to miss the point - I am not suggesting OAFC is bound to release everything but the current government trend is for info to be in the public domain unless a valid reason against can be raised. What can be the valid reason against giving access to minutes from club meetings with specific personal details removed? Finally to reiterate a point earlier, there has been an element of this debate saying that because Barry is willing to give up his time where others won't then he deserves the job. That is idiocy. We cannot go to the lowest common denominator (that isn't meant to be specific to Barry by the way) because other people carry the stigma of full-time jobs or young families etc. To bring back to the idea of exisiting without specific representation, by having a board that met on an semi-regular basis to provide oversight to the club then this burden could be spread between several members. To bring this back to the second paragraph, were Barry Owen a member of the Trust board then his experience with the police could still be used but when it came to other facets of the club's running others could be appointed when their skillset matched the issues. Surely this is a more efficient way of getting the most out of a Trust? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 (edited) I raised the issue earlier about freedom of information and Real was good enough to miss the point - I am not suggesting OAFC is bound to release everything but the current government trend is for info to be in the public domain unless a valid reason against can be raised. What can be the valid reason against giving access to minutes from club meetings with specific personal details removed? LOL. There's no need at all to try a sarky little comment. You said FoI puts info into the Public domain. I pointed out that it didn't apply to OAFC 2004. You got it wrong, don't try to make out that you meant something else, and that I was wrong, it's plain what you said. What's all this "government trend is for info to be in the public domian unless a valid reason can be raised" - 1. Where exactly are the Govt doing that; and 2. How does it apply to OAFC 2004? There's no such action/goverment trend, push, policy or any other angle. You're simply clutching at straws to try to claim that you were right. You weren't and you still are not. The government have no policy that would require, in any way shape or form at all, for a privately held company (like OAFC 2004, or like any other company, shop, business) to publish minutes from meetings etc. You're trying to apply stuff that has no relevance at all. YOU have clearly missed the point of whatever irrelevant bit of legislation you've read. The 3% gives the trust Director access to the info. That's what it achieves. it also give the legal protection of minority shareholders rights. Edited June 19, 2010 by real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 LOL. There's no need at all to try a sarky little comment. You said FoI puts info into the Public domain. I pointed out that it didn't apply to OAFC 2004. You got it wrong, don't try to make out that you meant something else, and that I was wrong, it's plain what you said. What's all this "government trend is for info to be in the public domian unless a valid reason can be raised" - 1. Where exactly are the Govt doing that; and 2. How does it apply to OAFC 2004? There's no such action/goverment trend, push, policy or any other angle. You're simply clutching at straws to try to claim that you were right. You weren't and you still are not. The government have no policy that would require, in any way shape or form at all, for a privately held company (like OAFC 2004, or like any other company, shop, business) to publish minutes from meetings etc. You're trying to apply stuff that has no relevance at all. YOU have clearly missed the point of whatever irrelevant bit of legislation you've read. The 3% gives the trust Director access to the info. That's what it achieves. it also give the legal protection of minority shareholders rights. Access to information that non executive directors do not have Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Access to information that non executive directors do not have Can the benfits of this to members of the trust (and the wider supporter base) be quantified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Can the benfits of this to members of the trust (and the wider supporter base) be quantified? Well it would make doing what Chris Moore did a bit tricky; or in fact illegal. The 3% would make such action illegal (in the sense that CM could potentially have been sued for his actions) in damaging the value of the 3%. The board presence means that such action would have to be discussed at boardroom level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Hmmm, sarky comments? Look to yourself Mr Real because you did get the wrong end of the stick, no I wasn't wrong and yes the government are trying to make information more freely available - look at data.gov.uk and you'll see the start of the process put in place by Gordon Brown. If you Real-ly need it spelling out then what I meant was... if the British government can move towards the idea that information should be in the public domain without compelling reason otherwise, then what is so secret at Boundary Park that it needs to be kept so closely under wraps? I wasn't stating the FoI applied to a private corporation because so far as I am aware it is more to do with the subject of the information itself when in corporate terms. So to summarise, what I meant was that there is no reason that a Trust rep should be so secretive because the majority of the information is not exactly earth-shattering. Over to you, and maybe next time you can actually address the bulk of the comment rather than trying to nit-pick and make yourself feel good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) Just seen this !!!! Wtf, what complete what complete tripe ! No what is complete tripe is the fans / members have little or no control over the role of "fan on the board"... Anyone should be able to stand for that role and if they can command a majority vote from the MEMEBERS that person should then take that role. I would be AMAZED if the majority of Latics would disagree with this approach. MEMBERS vote for FAN ON THE BOARD... Its a simple and straight forward form of democracy... Edited June 22, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Just for the purposes of the discussion - I ain't taking sides! - what would the fans do if they had more control over the fan-on-the-board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.