Jump to content

Trust Reforms


Recommended Posts

I wanted to do this over the weekend. With Barry gone (YAY!!!!) and trust directors hopefully keen to move on to a better world. I thought I would do another Trust Reforms thread.

 

Feel free to contribute.

 

  1. Make use of modern day communication tools. The Trust website, Trust Twitter and Trust Facebook should be the main form of communication. Secondary should be fans forums like OWTB. Last of all should be face to face meetings, social events and so on. There really shouldn't be a need outside a yearly AGM for everyone to get together except for social / fund raising events. The world has moved on. People don't have time for that sort of monthly / quarterly meeting. I know people will immediately point to people without web access but the stark reality is you can't run something like this as if it was the 1980s still. The world has moved to online. Its time the Trust did.
  2. Real representation - If the Trust is not representing the fans it is not doing its job. Our man on the board has to be taking more than his own opinions to the board. Even when he doesn't agree with the fans consensus. The Trust is a Union and any good Union leader knows he is there to represent his membership first, second and last. Once you stop doing that its game over.
  3. Real democracy - The current system of trust directors choosing the "fan on the board" is so wrong its untrue. The members should vote for the "fan on the board"
  4. Full transparency - Everything should be published on the Trust website. Accounts, Minutes, News, Events etc.
  5. Real consultation - Issues facing the club and being raised at board meetings should be put to the fans for consultation. Fans can be polled via the Trust website and the other communication methods.
  6. Financial contribution - The trust needs to concern itself with creating a "war chest". This isn't so we can do a take over of the club or anything dramatic. But should the :censored: hit the fan then we will have money to keep the club going in the interim, help with legal bills, amd so on but also to help build the trust.
  7. Trust Oldham merchandise for sale to raise funds. It should be something you are proud to show you belong to.
  8. being a member gives you voting rights, maybe access to various members benefits etc... not being a member will never exclude you from attending events, hearing / viewing / being privay to information and discussions. TRANSPARENCY. No bollocks about leaving after 30 mins. Whats that all about ? What is there to hide ? Nothing!
  9. the Trust should very much be concerned with raising funds for its own activities
  10. the Trust should see itself as a supporters body
  11. if the trust money is to be used to buy equipment or contribute to development projects.... Where possible the the trust should retain ownership or part ownership of said things..
  12. The role of Fan on the Board and Chairman of the trust should be SPLIT. Its too big of a job for one person. I believe its lead to the trust being neglected. We need the directors to appoint a chairman. And the fans appoint a representative to the board. I don't even see why this person has to be a director of the trust.
  13. MAXIMUM four year period for any "fan on the board". Keep it fresh. Give others a chance.
Ok its a bit of a fag packet list but its something of a start. Feel free to add / disagree but keep it positive as possible, even if you disagree.
Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Which Trust directors seem keen to move on?

Valid question. I've never known any Trust director openly criticise anything Barry's done in the role. Further, they've all been very keen to point out that he's not a fans' representative. If that's how the appointment of Barry's replacement is approached, it may not bring about a great deal of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that people within the Trust present and past might not have achieved everything that they might have done in a better set up. It's clear that there was a party line to tow, people can offer skills but might not fancy standing up to an accomplished bully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was hopeful that a change at the very top would allow others to start speaking out / making changes etc... but yeah every chance they are all crying over losing "dear leader"... Wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt...

 

This really isn't off to a positive start is it....

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps best to edit the OP.

 

No I will let it stand. It was and still is my personal feeling that I got from recent conversations and everyone can see the conversation we just had.

 

Plus you have replied to it and put it in quotes so it would be confusing to edit it. I think its clear I wasn't trying to misrepresent anyone's view. Otherwise I wouldn't of put "seemingly".... as in it "seems to me"...

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say democratic accountability is essential. Whatever the outcome of the post-mortem of last week, it's apparent that one feature of Barry's tenure was the elimination of accountability. For all I know, that was built into the Trust from day one.

 

At the same time, the Trust person on the board must be able to exercise independent judgment. In the furnace of last week, that might mean coming out for or against a transfer. In happier times, it would mean coming out with a Trust position on whether we have new shirts next year or supporter engagement. Barry's judgment was consistently flawed but it was impossible to get him out, leading to many episodes of supporter despair.

 

If someone different had come out in favour of the Ched signing, I might have thought, "My vote goes to the other person on the ballot as soon as you're up for re-election." It wouldn't immediately change the Trust position, but that accountability would make any Trust chair consider their response a bit more deeply than Barry ever did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, whilst I might not have seen an explcicit statement, I definiely agree there was a desire to improve things. I did not expect a wholesale rush to condemn Barry that would be unfair, but improvement , yes.

Communicaition, clarity of positions were specifically stated.

Edited by singe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had Clem sitting with us for part of the game on Saturday, just listening in to the banter.

It might be an idea for the Trust members to sit amongst the home fans around the ground, and just listen in

to the feelings of the fans each week. That way they would get a wide spread of views that could be fed back

to the board via the board member.

I think that might be a better way than actually asking peoples opinions, because sometimes when people are

put on the spot they tend to over elaborate.

Just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had Clem sitting with us for part of the game on Saturday, just listening in to the banter.

It might be an idea for the Trust members to sit amongst the home fans around the ground, and just listen in

to the feelings of the fans each week. That way they would get a wide spread of views that could be fed back

to the board via the board member.

I think that might be a better way than actually asking peoples opinions, because sometimes when people are

put on the spot they tend to over elaborate.

Just an idea.

 

To be fair, it's hard to think of a decent stance that any Trust Chair could take during something like the Ched fiasco. Maybe they'd say: "There are opinions on all sides. Above all, we need to keep the debate civil. I'm out and about talking to supporters and they're split down the middle, with both sides giving decent reasons for their views. My opinion is X, but at board level, I'm sitting on the fence. I don't feel I can commit the trust on this vexed question."

 

Or they could have said: "Look at the state of this :censored:. Whatever your views about Ched Evans, this should not be happening at our football club. I do not want a convicted rapist on the books and I do not want the world's media to be suffering sub-zero temperatures on Furtherwood Road for five consecutive days."

 

Or this: "We've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sign a striker who might not totally bomb when he arrives at Boundary Park. Ched might be a wrong 'un, but he's got :censored:loads of goals in him."

 

There'd be massively negative reactions to any of those sorts of statements, but nothing like the opprobrium rightly heaped on Barry last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be fair, it's hard to think of a decent stance that any Trust Chair could take during something like the Ched fiasco. Maybe they'd say: "There are opinions on all sides. Above all, we need to keep the debate civil. I'm out and about talking to supporters and they're split down the middle, with both sides giving decent reasons for their views. My opinion is X, but at board level, I'm sitting on the fence. I don't feel I can commit the trust on this vexed question."

 

Or they could have said: "Look at the state of this :censored:. Whatever your views about Ched Evans, this should not be happening at our football club. I do not want a convicted rapist on the books and I do not want the world's media to be suffering sub-zero temperatures on Furtherwood Road for five consecutive days."

 

Or this: "We've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sign a striker who might not totally bomb when he arrives at Boundary Park. Ched might be a wrong 'un, but he's got :censored:loads of goals in him."

 

There'd be massively negative reactions to any of those sorts of statements, but nothing like the opprobrium rightly heaped on Barry last week.

 

A sensible way to proceed would perhaps have been to canvass fans' views by whatever means and then, given that the fanbase (and the country for that matter) were divided, say they could not support a signature that would cause such division between the fans regardless of the rights and wrongs of the moral argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A sensible way to proceed would perhaps have been to canvass fans' views by whatever means and then, given that the fanbase (and the country for that matter) were divided, say they could not support a signature that would cause such division between the fans regardless of the rights and wrongs of the moral argument.

 

You've just jumped even further ahead of me in the massive queue to become Trust chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A sensible way to proceed would perhaps have been to canvass fans' views by whatever means and then, given that the fanbase (and the country for that matter) were divided, say they could not support a signature that would cause such division between the fans regardless of the rights and wrongs of the moral argument.

I 100% agree with that-it would have been the only sensible option-You get my vote JSS-are you standing for election?

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...