Jump to content

Barry Owen role in the club


Forte_Baby

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To just clarify I was talking about the selection of said fan....

 

 

The selection was made by a vote of 143 or so people who put themselves forward for the role of Chair.

 

The appointment was made after a lot of people applied through application and each person processed by selection.

 

When the first chair asked to step down a vote process was carried out for the new chair. This appointment is still in the chair as NO OTHER fan or member have since put themsleves forward for the role.

 

If anyone wants the role the due process is clearly explained on how to apply for it.

 

People have to step up to the plate and take on a responsibilty of the role instead of just moaning that the position.

 

Why 'bitch and moan' and then not do anything about it? The process is there !

 

 

If fans are willing to moan about the position yet not apply why should other fans who dont moan about the role apply ?

 

As for this statement !!!! The role stands for nothing, has given us the fans nothing and will continue to give us the fans nothing...

 

Fans have been involved with the club, an insight to how a club is run has been gained and a relationship as been formed ! Fans have had an imput on many events and promotions the club have run to save the fans money.

 

Your statement is wrong and insulting to the work done by fans and members of the Trust on behalf of the fans and to the club who have worked with the Trust and OASA on a number of occassions.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, I'm really confused. Are you saying that you have to put yourself forward as a potential Chairperson in order to vote for whomever you feel should fill the role?

 

 

No, to take the position of Chair you have to be a serving director of the Trust.

 

When the chair position is up for election, that is when you put yourself forward for nomination.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to be a Director to put yourself forward. Right, gotcha. And then the Directors vote on who's going to be Chairperson. Cool.

 

Back to my previous question, then, if this is the case: What is the point of paying to become a Trust member when you aren't entitled to vote on who leads the organisation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have to be a Director to put yourself forward. Right, gotcha. And then the Directors vote on who's going to be Chairperson. Cool.

 

Back to my previous question, then, if this is the case: What is the point of paying to become a Trust member when you aren't entitled to vote on who leads the organisation?

 

Your payment or subscription is to help financially support the club in ways that the Trust can.

 

It may not seem a lot but the trust subscriptions over the past 4 years have paid for a lot of groundman equipment and money towards the last minibus.

 

TTA have welcomed the assistance when possible. I understand people want any money raised by the Trust to be saved for a rainy day and we take that under consideration when a request from the club is made.

 

Your payment towards the Trust is infact a support to the club.

 

Trust Oldham helped towards the financial committment of the signature for Luke Becket.

 

There is a lot of fans currently paying money to the Player Share scheme to enable the Trust to support the future of a potential star of the future.

 

If the club have to make a choice between 2 players both with potential we would like to help so Oldham Athletic dont lose out like Burnely did with Neal Trottman etc.

 

 

edit to note

 

You are able as members to be entitled to vote on who leads the organisation, members can nominate their peers to serve on the Trust. This in turn means the position of chair can be made by persons on the board who are acting as trustees for the membership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are able as members to be entitled to vote on who leads the organisation, members can nominate their peers to serve on the Trust. This in turn means the position of chair can be made by persons on the board who are acting as trustees for the membership

I think actually it would make more sense to say you can nominate a peer to serve on the Trust, no?

 

Incidentally, was Barry elected or co-opted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think actually it would make more sense to say you can nominate a peer to serve on the Trust, no?

 

Incidentally, was Barry elected or co-opted?

 

 

Barry was elected when Peter Hegginbotham had to stand down.

 

A member can nominate more than one peer, friend or fan at any AGM.

 

If two members wished they could put forward a few different nominations to become active trust directors. Any nomination needs to be seconded by another member to become a valid nomination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all my own understanding, so I apologise if any of it is incorrect:

 

The Trust's base purpose is to ensure that the fans of Oldham Athletic are heard and represented within the hierarchy of the club. A 3% stake was bought with money raised by Trust members/'regular' fans. With this came a seat on the Board, which the Chairperson of the Trust occupies.

 

Why on Earth does the entire Trust membership base not get a say in who that person is? It's in complete contradiction to the ethos of the Trust, surely?

 

I've mentioned previously that I may well have spectacularly got the wrong end of the stick, and I may be missing vital information which renders my questions obsolete. But I need someone to educate me, otherwise I'm going to continue harbouring these misconceptions; and nothing anyone has said so far has even begun to explain the situation satisfactorily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand your point raised, so I will try to answer it in the best way that I can.

 

The position of chair is elected from active serving directors. This is to ensure that the chair is a committed person who understand the role that is expected and a relationship and understanding is gained before the role is taken on.

 

If we did it another way, a group of people could nominate one person for the role even though they didnt really want it anyway. This may sound silly but we (Trust) have experienced this before.

 

The process and formation of the Trust is one that is supported and formated by Supporters Direct.

 

The membership by being active can nominate persons interested for a role on the Trust to ensure any points of concerned are raised if they feel this appropriate.

 

The current serving fans all ensure that any considered points are put forward within our roles to the club. It would be fair to say that we (Fans) have a representive at Club for Board matters and a number of secondary reps who are all in continuous contact with persons at the club for other matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a bit unsure as to how this nomination ("election") process works. I understand that I as a Trust member can nominate someone to be a Director. Is this then considered by the existing Directors to decide whether to allow it, or is it put to the wider membership? If it is the former then surely the existing Directors, as members of the Trust, can simply nominate whoever they want to join them and rubber stamp it and veto those who they don;t like. This is crucial as the people resulting from the process are the only ones with a say in who controls the Chair and therefore the 3% holding. Who elects the electors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a bit unsure as to how this nomination ("election") process works. I understand that I as a Trust member can nominate someone to be a Director. Is this then considered by the existing Directors to decide whether to allow it, or is it put to the wider membership? If it is the former then surely the existing Directors, as members of the Trust, can simply nominate whoever they want to join them and rubber stamp it and veto those who they don;t like. This is crucial as the people resulting from the process are the only ones with a say in who controls the Chair and therefore the 3% holding. Who elects the electors?

The electors are elected by the membership and their peers. The Chair can veto a nomination if in the interest of the trust that said person was seemed unsuitable for the role. This would only be done with in extreme circumstances, ie, nominated person had a conviction or banning order related to football or the community etc.

 

If you (Andy) wanted to nominate Zorrro has an example to the board you would need second Member to seconded this nomination. This could be done by another member or a serving director.

 

If in this case Zorrro said he didn’t want the role, again the chair would veto the nomination.

 

Each nomination as directed within the protocol needs to be given before the AGM so the board can ensure that the person interested is suitable for the role.

 

The trust would NOT stop any new member joining the trust board because they didn’t like them, know them. The trust may ask anyone interested to be co opted for a given time to the trust to work on a project and to make sure they were truly interested in taking a director role.

 

A person can be co opted to the trust board at anytime.

 

The only stipulation is that there is more elected persons on the board than co opted.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder of the current elected members of the Trust board, how many were elected by nomination or secondment of existing or now current Trust Directors?

 

barry was elected

diane elected

Peter elected

wendy elected

richard elected

simon elected

jeff elected

carl co opted then passed for director role

mark cop opted ditto carl

mike elected

dave elected

 

i will try to find out our nominated all i know are myself jeff and simon !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

OK, here's the quote from you about FoI:-

 

"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. " it seems pretty clear what you meant.

 

So, what's that got to do with latics? Nowt.

 

You're now moving further and further away from the point. It started off as a discussion but you decided to make a silly comment and not even have the good grace to adress it to me.

 

Now, the point (in all the discussion - which is not about who is right, but more about what is right, but you don't seem to see it that way - hey-ho) is that the Trust gives the fans a voice / access (within it's limitations) to info we would not otherwise have.

 

If you can find the same access at another club with the same private business status, then let me know. All your stuff about government access means nothing. it's simply not relevant. You need to grasp that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

barry was elected

diane elected

Peter elected

wendy elected

richard elected

simon elected

jeff elected

carl co opted then passed for director role

mark cop opted ditto carl

mike elected

dave elected

 

i will try to find out our nominated all i know are myself jeff and simon !

I might not have been very clear with my question or I may be getting confused with the terminology. Am I correct to say that, "election," means that two Trust members have put the person forward and that this hasn't been vetoed by the Chair? This is as I see it. My question was, how many of the people who have been elected by this process were proposed or seconded by people who were already on the Board, effectively making them co-opted members by another name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's the quote from you about FoI:-

 

"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. " it seems pretty clear what you meant.

 

So, what's that got to do with latics? Nowt.

 

You're now moving further and further away from the point. It started off as a discussion but you decided to make a silly comment and not even have the good grace to adress it to me.

 

Now, the point (in all the discussion - which is not about who is right, but more about what is right, but you don't seem to see it that way - hey-ho) is that the Trust gives the fans a voice / access (within it's limitations) to info we would not otherwise have.

 

If you can find the same access at another club with the same private business status, then let me know. All your stuff about government access means nothing. it's simply not relevant. You need to grasp that point.

If you dig deeper the comment about the FoI was made in response to somebody else raising the issue of elected representatives (MP's). Then if you put it all into context the response about the FoI was made to show that even elected represented bodies within the government are moving towards a scenario where their information is in the public domain. Hence if you follow the logic train then it leads to the start point - what is so secret at OAFC that information should be held back until it is absolutely necessary when the UK government sees fit to take a different tack?

 

I would hazard a guess that there is little or nothing that doesn't relate directly to personal finances that would actually impact on the club in a negative way, and hence the idea that we need an "insider" to vet things for us but then keep silence in the ranks is a bit outmoded. That make sense?

 

As for the access and what is right etc, I think again you are missing the point. I have nothing against Barry Owen but I find the idea that he should sit on the board ridiculous - by what right does he stand as the sentinel who guards the best interests of Oldham fans? By a committee vote? Well that disenfranchises the people who pay subs but don't sit on a panel. Also, my point was not about the role as much as the idea that whoever sits in that chair should be totally agnostic on all issues relating to club policy - he is there purely as a mouthpiece for others. Finally there is no way that through the Trust's involvement that a representative's opinion will hold weight against a 97% stake - hence the reasoning that the model of having a fan on the board may be something better addressed in another way.

 

One final point, you mention the info that we otherwise wouldn't have. Is not the point that individual Trust members feel that they do not have that info now despite the financial contributions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you dig deeper the comment about the FoI was made in response to somebody else raising the issue of elected representatives (MP's). Then if you put it all into context the response about the FoI was made to show that even elected represented bodies within the government are moving towards a scenario where their information is in the public domain. Hence if you follow the logic train then it leads to the start point - what is so secret at OAFC that information should be held back until it is absolutely necessary when the UK government sees fit to take a different tack?

 

I would hazard a guess that there is little or nothing that doesn't relate directly to personal finances that would actually impact on the club in a negative way, and hence the idea that we need an "insider" to vet things for us but then keep silence in the ranks is a bit outmoded. That make sense?

 

As for the access and what is right etc, I think again you are missing the point. I have nothing against Barry Owen but I find the idea that he should sit on the board ridiculous - by what right does he stand as the sentinel who guards the best interests of Oldham fans? By a committee vote? Well that disenfranchises the people who pay subs but don't sit on a panel. Also, my point was not about the role as much as the idea that whoever sits in that chair should be totally agnostic on all issues relating to club policy - he is there purely as a mouthpiece for others. Finally there is no way that through the Trust's involvement that a representative's opinion will hold weight against a 97% stake - hence the reasoning that the model of having a fan on the board may be something better addressed in another way.

 

One final point, you mention the info that we otherwise wouldn't have. Is not the point that individual Trust members feel that they do not have that info now despite the financial contributions?

 

You can dig as far as you like. You can hazard guesses as much as you like.

 

How much info do other clubs give out; How much access (within reasonable, established board member rules) do the supporters of other clubs get?

 

Start with Manure and the other Prem clubs; Work your way through the Championship; then work through league 1; Then go through league 2; Then do the Conference; Then other clubs (Ebbsfleet?). What sort of access/info do others get?

 

Or we could do away with the Trust Chair as a board member and have what most of the clubs you've trawled through as per the above direction have got. Nothing. No FoI, No government push towards "access to info unless there is a good reason not to give it" (whatever that means or whenever it is supposed to happen).

 

You seem to have side stepped again. You keep suggesting there is some government push towards companies like Latics giving access to info. You don't seem to be able to substantiate this claim. Can you please give some link to a policy that does NOT relate to the public sector (which is what you've used so far) or to Public Companies (you've not even got near these yet); nevermind to privately held companies (like Latics).

 

 

There IS NO LOGIC TRAIN from public bodies to private ones. The former are paid for without choice by all taxpayers; the latter by choice, by those who choose. You might as well ask "What is so secret it the board meetings of Marks and Spencer/Tesco/Sainsburys?" but at least those are publicly floated. What about the thousands of non-publicly floated (private) businesses? Do you want their details? Do you wanrt the local chippy's accounts?

 

Are you prepeared to pay for the MASSIVE bureauracy to deal with all this stuff? If so, send me 10% of your earnings and I'l sort it out for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can dig as far as you like. You can hazard guesses as much as you like.

 

How much info do other clubs give out; How much access (within reasonable, established board member rules) do the supporters of other clubs get?

 

Start with Manure and the other Prem clubs; Work your way through the Championship; then work through league 1; Then go through league 2; Then do the Conference; Then other clubs (Ebbsfleet?). What sort of access/info do others get?

 

Or we could do away with the Trust Chair as a board member and have what most of the clubs you've trawled through as per the above direction have got. Nothing. No FoI, No government push towards "access to info unless there is a good reason not to give it" (whatever that means or whenever it is supposed to happen).

 

You seem to have side stepped again. You keep suggesting there is some government push towards companies like Latics giving access to info. You don't seem to be able to substantiate this claim. Can you please give some link to a policy that does NOT relate to the public sector (which is what you've used so far) or to Public Companies (you've not even got near these yet); nevermind to privately held companies (like Latics).

 

 

There IS NO LOGIC TRAIN from public bodies to private ones. The former are paid for without choice by all taxpayers; the latter by choice, by those who choose. You might as well ask "What is so secret it the board meetings of Marks and Spencer/Tesco/Sainsburys?" but at least those are publicly floated. What about the thousands of non-publicly floated (private) businesses? Do you want their details? Do you wanrt the local chippy's accounts?

 

Are you prepeared to pay for the MASSIVE bureauracy to deal with all this stuff? If so, send me 10% of your earnings and I'l sort it out for you.

 

 

Freedom of Information Act:

 

The Freedom of Information Act deals with access to official information and gives individuals or organisations the right to request information from any public authority.

 

Data Protection Act:

 

The Data Protection Act requires anyone who handles personal information to comply with a number of important principles. It also gives individuals rights over their personal information.

 

 

Information Commissioner

 

FoI doesn't apply to Latics, DP Act only applies if someone holds personal info on you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can dig as far as you like. You can hazard guesses as much as you like.

 

How much info do other clubs give out; How much access (within reasonable, established board member rules) do the supporters of other clubs get?

 

Start with Manure and the other Prem clubs; Work your way through the Championship; then work through league 1; Then go through league 2; Then do the Conference; Then other clubs (Ebbsfleet?). What sort of access/info do others get?

 

Or we could do away with the Trust Chair as a board member and have what most of the clubs you've trawled through as per the above direction have got. Nothing. No FoI, No government push towards "access to info unless there is a good reason not to give it" (whatever that means or whenever it is supposed to happen).

 

You seem to have side stepped again. You keep suggesting there is some government push towards companies like Latics giving access to info. You don't seem to be able to substantiate this claim. Can you please give some link to a policy that does NOT relate to the public sector (which is what you've used so far) or to Public Companies (you've not even got near these yet); nevermind to privately held companies (like Latics).

 

 

There IS NO LOGIC TRAIN from public bodies to private ones. The former are paid for without choice by all taxpayers; the latter by choice, by those who choose. You might as well ask "What is so secret it the board meetings of Marks and Spencer/Tesco/Sainsburys?" but at least those are publicly floated. What about the thousands of non-publicly floated (private) businesses? Do you want their details? Do you wanrt the local chippy's accounts?

 

Are you prepeared to pay for the MASSIVE bureauracy to deal with all this stuff? If so, send me 10% of your earnings and I'l sort it out for you.

This is tiresome.

 

I am not suggesting that the government want Latics or private companies to start dolling out information, I am asking why a large amount of government data is considered to be fine for public viewing while the inner workings of OAFC are too high-profile to risk? That is not hard to understand is it? Or am I speaking in tongues? Do you want me to reiterate the point? I am not suggesting that OAFC fall under the FoI Act, I am suggesting that as a body dealing with matters of less than national import Latics can afford to be more open.

 

Furthermore what have we not got in common with those other clubs that you mentioned? We have a Trust organisation that puts funds directly into the running costs of the club, buying "us" a seat on the board - hence we should be expecting more open management than a standard ManUre fan living in Cheshire. So what has that got to do with a local chippy? And yes, if I owned a share in the chippy then I would expect to know all the details or at least have them available to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is tiresome.

 

Go back to the stuff about politicians that "someone" referred to. Do a google on "Cabinet style Government" and the way it operates.

 

What do you want to see exactly? We see the outcome of decisions, what we don't see is who was in favour, who wasn't, who was persuaded who wasn't etc. What good would that do? Create splits and divisions? Give people yet more info to do what with?

 

20 years ago people hardly knew who was chairman or on the board. Does it really help to know the ins and outs of a cow's backside/ (unless you're a vet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to the stuff about politicians that "someone" referred to. Do a google on "Cabinet style Government" and the way it operates.

 

What do you want to see exactly? We see the outcome of decisions, what we don't see is who was in favour, who wasn't, who was persuaded who wasn't etc. What good would that do? Create splits and divisions? Give people yet more info to do what with?

 

20 years ago people hardly knew who was chairman or on the board. Does it really help to know the ins and outs of a cow's backside/ (unless you're a vet.)

/

Create splits and divisions? Are you for real? How could the club be any more split on the big issues that affect it? We have a declining fanbase who are, on the whole, desperately worried by the prospect that the new stadium could be a major mistake for the club while the disapproval fuels certain peoples' belief that the owners have some sneaky way of making millions out of the sale of the Boundary Park site. This is poisonous for the fans' morale and I would argue very strongly that had more information been made available from the off with regards to the available sites then we would have less of an issue with it now. Wouldn't you agree that had the Trust been able to put some sort of commission in place to look at this, then people would view the results with more faith?

 

The point is that having one figurehead of the Trust who seems to be sitting on the fence between fans and owners does not seem to be working. While I am not doubting for a moment that Barry Owen does a sterling job, and I am not doubting his having the club's best intentions at heart, increasingly it looks to me like the role is too much of a balancing act - that by trying to keep his peace with the owners (as he must) he is losing the confidence of the people he is supposed to be working for. That is the point of this whole thread, and I have yet to see a cogent reason as to why we need the role that Barry fills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...