New Trust Directors?

[HarryBosch]

The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone was prepared to step up to be a director of the Trust and unless I have missed it, after 3 pages, nobody, outside those already involed, is.

 

The only way that the Trust can be modernised and turned into what many people seem to want it to be is if a number of people are prepared to put their head above the parapet and dedicate the time required to act as Trust Directors.

 

I think the current make-up of the Trust puts many people off as it is clearly dominated by one individual and that one individual does not want change. The fact that if you want to get rid of Barry, you need to be prepared to work with Barry is a paradox that many people seem to struggle with.

 

If nobody is prepared to do this then I am afraid we are stuck with what we have got.

 

Of 3500 regular attendees at BP only a few hundred, if that, come on here.

 

An article in the Chron is needed asking the wider Oldham public if they'd like to get involved.

 

And leafleting at the match.

 

As with the Ched Evans saga we must always remember that we on here are merely an over opinionated minority amongst Oldham fans.

Edited January 9, 2015 by HarryBosch

[HarryBosch]

The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone was prepared to step up to be a director of the Trust and unless I have missed it, after 3 pages, nobody, outside those already involed, is.

 

The only way that the Trust can be modernised and turned into what many people seem to want it to be is if a number of people are prepared to put their head above the parapet and dedicate the time required to act as Trust Directors.

 

I think the current make-up of the Trust puts many people off as it is clearly dominated by one individual and that one individual does not want change. The fact that if you want to get rid of Barry, you need to be prepared to work with Barry is a paradox that many people seem to struggle with.

 

If nobody is prepared to do this then I am afraid we are stuck with what we have got.

 

And the fact that Barry has become a full time employee of the club and regularly addresses the public in his own inimitable way leaves the impression that the Trusts Representative on the Board needs to be a hard talking, full time director - does he/she?

 

The perception that it does no doubt puts people off.

Edited January 9, 2015 by HarryBosch

[HarryBosch]

 

I have been proposing such stuff for a while. The usual (terrible) response is not all fans have access to the internet... I would imagine the vast majority do in reality and it wouldn't be hard to have alternative means to canvas opinions...

 

 

 

It must be a very simple, cost effective thing to set up in this day and age.

 

When the :censored: hits the fan like it did this week, had we had this in place, by Monday evening the Trust could have contacted the club and all the media outlets to definitively say that x number of members of the Trust have voted against signing Ched Evans, x number have voted in favour of it.

Immediate, definitive, factual information to the club and the watching public about where we as a fanbase stood.

[deyres42]

 

It must be a very simple, cost effective thing to set up in this day and age.

 

When the :censored: hits the fan like it did this week, had we had this in place, by Monday evening the Trust could have contacted the club and all the media outlets to definitively say that x number of members of the Trust have voted against signing Ched Evans, x number have voted in favour of it.

Immediate, definitive, factual information to the club and the watching public about where we as a fanbase stood.

Spot on.

 

I don't personally even have a problem with Owen carrying on with being Chairman if that's what the directors vote for, why they would want to continue working with someone who doesn't consult them on such a major issue is another matter.

[HarryBosch]

Spot on.

 

I don't personally even have a problem with Owen carrying on with being Chairman if that's what the directors vote for, why they would want to continue working with someone who doesn't consult them on such a major issue is another matter.

 

The position should, most of the time, simply involve being a conduit for information between the club and the members of the Trust, shouldn't it?

 

Somebody enlighten me if I've got this wrong ......

 

Unless the OAFC board of directors need to vote/agree on something like the Ched Evans signing, which it sounded like they did according to the press.

Should Barry not have been representing the position of Trust members, and their 3% stake in the club, rather than his own personal position?

Edited January 9, 2015 by HarryBosch

[underdog]

This should be the catalyst for the Trust on many levels

 

I hope it will find fresh blood, I hope many of you can find the time to help in any capacity.This time last year when help was asked for, I think there was about 10 offers but for one reason or another - did not pan out.

 

This years AGM, there are two directors due to retire and three up for re-election. All posts are on a three year tenure.

[super_blue]

The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone was prepared to step up to be a director of the Trust and unless I have missed it, after 3 pages, nobody, outside those already involed, is.

 

The only way that the Trust can be modernised and turned into what many people seem to want it to be is if a number of people are prepared to put their head above the parapet and dedicate the time required to act as Trust Directors.

 

I think the current make-up of the Trust puts many people off as it is clearly dominated by one individual and that one individual does not want change. The fact that if you want to get rid of Barry, you need to be prepared to work with Barry is a paradox that many people seem to struggle with.

 

If nobody is prepared to do this then I am afraid we are stuck with what we have got.

Something needs putting together that highlights what the roles entail and what the criteria for being involved is. Not everyone can trawl through posts like this or piece the details together from the website. 1 simple document with the above details on would help massively! I would certainly be interested to see this with a view to get involved some how and somewhere!

 

Thanks

Edited January 9, 2015 by super_blue

[deyres42]

 

The position should, most of the time, simply involve being a conduit for information between the club and the members of the Trust, shouldn't it?

 

Somebody enlighten me if I've got this wrong ......

 

Unless the OAFC board of directors need to vote/agree on something like the Ched Evans signing, which it sounded like they did according to the press.

Should Barry not have been representing the position of Trust members, and their 3% stake in the club, rather than his own personal position?

Yep, which I guess is where a lot of the anger is stemming from.

 

The club would be probably have ploughed with the move regardless of fan opinion but the views should have at least been heard on this occasion.

[Pine Villains]

pu t the lot of them up for re election.....see whos left standing...no offence to anybody inparticular...lets get the confidence back cant have that without unity and majority approval

[singe]

This should be the catalyst for the Trust on many levels

 

I hope it will find fresh blood, I hope many of you can find the time to help in any capacity.This time last year when help was asked for, I think there was about 10 offers but for one reason or another - did not pan out.

 

This years AGM, there are two directors due to retire and three up for re-election. All posts are on a three year tenure.

Hi Tracey, could you state who is up for election, I couild not see it on the TO website. Apologies if it is there.

[singe]

pu t the lot of them up for re election.....see whos left standing...no offence to anybody inparticular...lets get the confidence back cant have that without unity and majority approval

I do agree.

But there wouldn;'t be a Trust, becasue no one is offering to stand..

[Dave_Og]

 

 

Should Barry not have been representing the position of Trust members, and their 3% stake in the club, rather than his own personal position?

 

As a director of the club Barry and his fellow directors shodul havebeen acting in the interests of (in today's terminology) all stakeholders.

 

1. Shareholders - particulartly representing the sole minority shareholder. He/they didn't becasue no meaningful atempt was made to find out what the indiviudals represented by that shareholding thought.

 

2. The business itself. He/they didn'tbecause it was obvious to all that this waould cause huge and potentially seriously damaging consequence.

 

3. Employees. He/they didn't because it was inevitable that the would come under pressure, and potentially danger (or at least the threat of danger) - as transpired.

 

4. Customers. He/they didn'yt as they clearly alienated a significant portion of the client base.

 

5. Business Partners. He/they didn't as there was clearly minimal consultation and there is/was the possibility of damaging the image and therefore business of these partners.

 

6. Neighbours. He/they didn't - inagine what it was like living in the roads around the ground this week. Utterly predictable.

 

7. Football as a whole. He/they didn't - the public image of the game has obviously sunk another notch

 

Probably others - I can safely say that the he/they didn't line will apply to all of them.

[BlueInAus]

I pay for 5 season tickets, do I get 5 votes on getting rid of Barry?

[lookers87]

Speaking as someone who has "put up" by joining the trust board in April/may I can say that many of the ideas, and general points being made are valid and have already been added to our huge lists or are being debated/acted on where possible - there's also some complete rubbish but hey that's what makes for decent debate.

 

What I do take some offence at is the idea that all board members but particularly the newer board members like myself and Chris seem to be in some way responsible (just through the action of volunteering - that's what it is folks) for all the perceived "ills" of the Trust and should therefore step down.

 

The idea that people like myself, Chris or Tracey for that matter are some sort of non thinking yes people couldn't be further from the truth. Indeed I've found all the trust directors to speak their own minds. As the owner of a relatively successful business my staff and clients would find that hilarious.

 

What is true of the Trust is that there are good people there making changes (which we often aren't able to speak about - until they're ready), listening and responding to questions to which we have answers/views where we are able, and turning things around slowly - I work in a fast-paced industry the speed of change does/is a frustration for us aswell.

 

It's healthy to debate the Trust and perceived weaknesses / ills particularly if the ideas coming from there are useful and lead to more people getting involved. The ship will turn around faster with more involvement.

 

More immediately I can say that over the past few days I personally passed all poll results, Facebook/Twitter comments I physically could and those from my friends and family (and even those non-football fans) through to the club - including my own views.

 

It wasn't a pleasant experience having reporters ringing personal mobile numbers, business numbers and attempting to doorstep whilst trying to do my very demanding day job, and hopefully anyone else wanting to volunteer in the future won't have to encounter such a situation.

 

As ooo's and lags have both said a thick skin is a prerequisite by the way.

 

I disagree the Trust is completely broken, it's probably healthier in some ways than it has been for a number of years, with more support it can be better.

Edited January 9, 2015 by lookers87

[BP1960]

Its shouldn't be a problem getting fans feedback from the

board, all it needs is for the minutes of a Trust meeting presented to them with an 'action by' a named person so it can be followed through,that's what I do on the minutes of my association..If there are no answers from the board it needs to be explained at the next members meeting by the Trust chair what any problems are.If it's confidential material with other parties involved at least mention that.

[c.hill12]

Somebody mentioned an article in the chron a few posts up. I have recently agreed a monthly column in the chron for all things trust related. As for the website voting idea, i personally think it's a cracking idea but want that can't really take off until the membership data base is complete. I will certainly push it at the next meeting. We have also agreed a regular page in the match program and web space on the OS. Things are moving in the right direction but very slowly. The more hands we have, the quicker it will move. If anybody wants to meet me to discuss anything trust related i am at the ground from 12.30ish tomorrow. Feel free to drop me a message and sort something out. Any exiles want to get in touch then email askthetrust@trustoldham.co.uk and i'm willing to chat n give you my number. The trust isn't a closed shop anymore how some people see it. I have come in to try and inprove this side of the organisation and any help or suggestions or constructive critisism is very welcome.

[HarryBosch]

 

The position should, most of the time, simply involve being a conduit for information between the club and the members of the Trust, shouldn't it?

 

Somebody enlighten me if I've got this wrong ......

 

Unless the OAFC board of directors need to vote/agree on something like the Ched Evans signing, which it sounded like they did according to the press.

Should Barry not have been representing the position of Trust members, and their 3% stake in the club, rather than his own personal position?

 

Aah, the shares that represent the 3% stake are "non voting"

 

http://www.owtb.co.uk/index.php/topic/46563-trust-oldham-constitutional-procedural-info/

[Wozzer]

 

As a director of the club Barry and his fellow directors shodul havebeen acting in the interests of (in today's terminology) all stakeholders.

 

1. Shareholders - particulartly representing the sole minority shareholder. He/they didn't becasue no meaningful atempt was made to find out what the indiviudals represented by that shareholding thought.

 

2. The business itself. He/they didn'tbecause it was obvious to all that this waould cause huge and potentially seriously damaging consequence.

 

3. Employees. He/they didn't because it was inevitable that the would come under pressure, and potentially danger (or at least the threat of danger) - as transpired.

 

4. Customers. He/they didn'yt as they clearly alienated a significant portion of the client base.

 

5. Business Partners. He/they didn't as there was clearly minimal consultation and there is/was the possibility of damaging the image and therefore business of these partners.

 

6. Neighbours. He/they didn't - inagine what it was like living in the roads around the ground this week. Utterly predictable.

 

7. Football as a whole. He/they didn't - the public image of the game has obviously sunk another notch

 

Probably others - I can safely say that the he/they didn't line will apply to all of them.

It's also the statutory responsibility of a Director to exercise independent judgment. In other words completely (if they wish) ignore the advice given to them providing they believe that their decision is likely to promote the success of the Company. There are definitely arguments that the signing of Evans had it occurred could have promoted the long term success of the business. You may not agree but they were exercising their independent judgment reasonably well until put under intolerable pressure by one or more nutcases.

[Dave_Og]

There are definitely arguments that the signing of Evans had it occurred could have promoted the long term success of the business. You may not agree but they were exercising their independent judgment reasonably well until put under intolerable pressure by one or more nutcases.

 

Not only do I disagree I think you've probably taken leave of your senses if you think the balance of risks comes out with any merit on the side of signing him. He could have broken his leg in his first game - in fact I'd say there was a heightened possibility.

 

The whole concept was an ill conceived gamble, the almost inevitable outcome of which was what has transpired.

[oafc0000]

Somebody mentioned an article in the chron a few posts up. I have recently agreed a monthly column in the chron for all things trust related. As for the website voting idea, i personally think it's a cracking idea but want that can't really take off until the membership data base is complete. I will certainly push it at the next meeting. We have also agreed a regular page in the match program and web space on the OS. Things are moving in the right direction but very slowly. The more hands we have, the quicker it will move. If anybody wants to meet me to discuss anything trust related i am at the ground from 12.30ish tomorrow. Feel free to drop me a message and sort something out. Any exiles want to get in touch then email askthetrust@trustoldham.co.uk and i'm willing to chat n give you my number. The trust isn't a closed shop anymore how some people see it. I have come in to try and inprove this side of the organisation and any help or suggestions or constructive critisism is very welcome.

 

Liking all of this!

[Wozzer]

I suppose that depends on your appetite for risk, it was clearly a risk but I can foresee circumstances in which the assessment of risk / reward in this case would come down on the side of signing. I note that apparently the Directors were 100% in favour. You clearly do disagree but Joy's statement suggests they had taken a view on risk and were prepared to take it. Obviously not all risks can be imagined (the direct threat of rape against a named individual for instance). Don't get me wrong I do believe mistakes were made but I equally have no evidence that they didn't execute their duties as Direcors adequately.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Wozzer

[underdog]

Hi Tracey, could you state who is up for election, I couild not see it on the TO website. Apologies if it is there.

To be honest I'm unsure as I didn't make note of the names when I typed the notes , I'm sort of getting my feet under the table before the rug gets pulled from under me.

 

Chris has suggested and was hoping to work on a "meet the trust team" sub page of who does what etc. I did suggest something similar to go around the ground with contact info too, but we wanted trailed this out with playershare posters to see if they could withstand the BP weather front.

 

I'm sure it will come out when the run up to voting starts

[ChaddySmoker]

I suppose that depends on your appetite for risk, it was clearly a risk but I can foresee circumstances in which the assessment of risk / reward in this case would come down on the side of signing. I note that apparently the Directors were 100% in favour. You clearly do disagree but Joy's statement suggests they had taken a view on risk and were prepared to take it. Obviously not all risks can be imagined (the direct threat of rape against a named individual for instance). Don't get me wrong I do believe mistakes were made but I equally have no evidence that they didn't execute their duties as Direcors adequately.

So A financial Director who gets a good tip on the horses can empty the Company Bank account to put all the funds on the 4.15 at Ripon and after it doesnt win can claim that he had an appetite for risk but executed his duties as a Director adequately. What a load of rubbish.

The Trust Rep was there to represent the Trust and only an idiot would argue otherwise

Edited January 9, 2015 by ChaddySmoker

[Wozzer]

Well as a Financial Director I would suggest that risk was probably unacceptable and certainly not proper use of company funds. One other thing I would suggest is that while the trust rep might be elected by the Trust and where possible should represent its interests - while he (or she) is present at a board meeting his overwhelming duty as a Director is to the Company not the trust - so, not to put too fine a point on it, if he feels the majority views of the trust are total bollocks he is totally within his rights to vote otherwise. Sorry if you don't like that but he would be failing in his duties as a Dirrctor to do otherwise.

[ChaddySmoker]

Well as a Financial Director I would suggest that risk was probably unacceptable and certainly not proper use of company funds. One other thing I would suggest is that while the trust rep might be elected by the Trust and where possible should represent its interests - while he (or she) is present at a board meeting his overwhelming duty as a Director is to the Company not the trust - so, not to put too fine a point on it, if he feels the majority views of the trust are total bollocks he is totally within his rights to vote otherwise. Sorry if you don't like that but he would be failing in his duties as a Dirrctor to do otherwise.

Sorry here was I thinking that since he simply agreed with your stance on the C Evans matter he was doing fine by ignoring the body he had been selected to represent-so long as he agreed with you!

Edited January 9, 2015 by ChaddySmoker