and Staff.

[BP1960]

On 8/3/2020 at 5:40 PM, Dave_Og said:

 

 

 It should be easy to narrow it down to about 40

 

Trust director leaves.

 

[Chaddyexile84]

1 minute ago, BP1960 said:

 

Trust director leaves.

 

best departure other than AL - absolutely useless in his role 

 

stands by to be announced staying on the club board as Bazza was 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Chaddyexile84

[underdog]

6 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

 

Trust director leaves.

 

Is that a spotlight I see before me?

 

[underdog]

18 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

best departure other than AL - absolutely useless in his role 

 

stands by to be announced staying on the club board as Bazza was 

published a statement when he was appointed last year he would not take up a role at the club for a minimum of 6 months after he resigned

[Chaddyexile84]

3 minutes ago, underdog said:

published a statement when he was appointed last year he would not take up a role at the club for a minimum of 6 months after he resigned

yeah - he’s been sooooo trustworthy since, slagging off fans blocking those who question him- we will see - as a trust rep he’s been nothing but a disgrace 

[underdog]

2 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

yeah - he’s been sooooo trustworthy since, slagging off fans blocking those who question him- we will see - as a trust rep he’s been nothing but a disgrace 

Hence why myself and a fellow director resigned after the February Trust meeting and as per the Trust meeting notes state. Personally, we could no longer trust him

[Chaddyexile84]

10 minutes ago, underdog said:

Hence why myself and a fellow director resigned after the February Trust meeting and as per the Trust meeting notes state. Personally, we could no longer trust him

can I ask why this wasn’t made public at the time? The trust is funded by and is for the fans? The fact directors resign due to not trusting the board rep is huge?? 
 

concerns about Darren were and have been made with no comment from Trust past or present? This stinks 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Chaddyexile84

[Lee Sinnott]

Give the club their 3 percent back, let them move the club out of the borough and let the rest of us get on with our lives...

[League one forever]

53 minutes ago, underdog said:

Is that a spotlight I see before me?

 

The old whiff of the boardroom strikes again. 
 

 

[underdog]

44 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

can I ask why this wasn’t made public at the time? The trust is funded by and is for the fans? The fact directors resign due to not trusting the board rep is huge?? 
 

concerns about Darren were and have been made with no comment from Trust past or present? This stinks 

I think it was mentioned in the January update on the website and then in the published Jan/Feb meeting notes (granted they were published by the trust in July after we had left).

 

I posted them in the pinned Trust thread above. It was put on the Trust website face book page and on hear.

 

Forgot to add, mine and Mark's resignation was not formally accepted by the Trust board, but the paper work was strangely done at Companies house before the March meeting.....it was never acknowledge by the Trust wither, which saddened me as I had served 6 years and Mark had served five years. 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by underdog

[underdog]

38 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

Give the club their 3 percent back, let them move the club out of the borough and let the rest of us get on with our lives...

oi, we want some money....how does £6 mill sound?

[Chaddyexile84]

2 minutes ago, underdog said:

I think it was mentioned in the January update on the website and then in the published Jan/Feb meeting notes (granted they were published by the trust in July after we had left).

 

I posted them in the pinned Trust thread above. It was put on the Trust website face book page and on hear.

 

 

absolutely nothing was mentioned about questioning Darren 

[disjointed]

44 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

Give the club their 3 percent back, let them move the club out of the borough and let the rest of us get on with our lives...

I have always been of the opinion that the 3 per cent was a valuable asset, I may have been wrong and perhaps we need to let it go. 

[underdog]

1 hour ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

absolutely nothing was mentioned about questioning Darren 

From website published in January. mentions Direct Mark Harrington proposal under lastly, any other business

 

https://trustoldham.co.uk/2020/01/21/trust-january-meeting-an-update-for-fans/

Trust Director: Mark Harrington proposed a formal review of the social media/communication policy and how the Trust’s OAFC Rep is engaging in the public domain using this method. Additional Concerns have been by a fans if it is the right method to use. It was agreed that two Trust directors not immediately involved with these issues will be appointed to review the concerns and will report back at our February meeting.

 

https://trustoldham.co.uk/2020/01/30/board-meeting-january-2020/

Trust Jan meeting notes published in July.

2. Complaint a. A complaint by a Trust member against a Director had been logged by email and the member also raised the issue in person at the open forum. b. The Trust acknowledged a complaint which was registered with the Vice-Chair in the Chair’s absence. c. Further discussion after the complaint had been raised was not appropriate and would have constituted a breach of process. d. The Trust Vice-Chair applied the Trust Code of Conduct. e. There would be no further comment until the assigned team has completed an investigation and reported back to the Vice-Chair. f. AB and KB were appointed as they were independent of any aspect of the complaint.

 

Outcome is in the Feb  notes. Published in July

https://trustoldham.co.uk/2020/02/28/board-meeting-february-2020/

 

14. Review of Role of Trust Nominated Director a. This review had been proposed at the January Board meeting by MH. b. The initial impetus was a desire for to investigate the social media postings of DR and this had been subsumed with the investigation of the fan complaint about the same matter. c. AB had volunteered to conduct the investigation into the complaint under the Trust’s Code of Conduct.

 

15. Outcome of Investigation into Fan Complaint a. The investigation had been undertaken by AB and KB under the terms of the Trust’s Code of Conduct. b. The result of the investigation was that both AB and KB concluded that there was no DR ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL PW further disciplinary action should be taken and the Trust’s Club Board Director should not be removed from his position. c. AB stated that there is some evidence that the DR could have made better judgements about his social media on a number of occasions but these did not amount to critically important failings. d. DR had previously been given appropriate advice as to future conduct by EG in respect of this matter as an appropriate response to DR as an individual. e. AB recommends more prescriptive wording in the Trust Club Director job description with regards to social media presence and postings. f. TW explained that the Trust had this job description in draft form for several months and although previously on the agenda, it was never discussed or approved. g. DR pointed out that the Social Media Policy in its current format is flawed and needs more work and that Trust Directors could not sign it as it stands as it needs revision.

 

16. Allegation of Undeclared Conflict of Interest a. TW asked DR what work paid/unpaid he has done for the club, as his own company website lists the Club as a client under the company’s portfolio of work b. TW asked specifically what work was undertaken during Aug-October 2019 and was this work paid or unpaid? c. If paid, had it been subject to a proper tendering process? d. DR explained that it was unpaid work that involved match day promotional work and this had been explained previously in meetings. e. TW challenged whether DR had disclosed this work for the Club and stated that as Acting Chair and Secretary she did not agree that it had been and had no recollection of any such declaration and said that she would look back at notes of previous meetings to confirm this. f. JF also expressed concern that DR had done work or the Club and expected that fans would have an adverse perception of it. g. DR explained he has checked his unpaid work with the FSA and they are happy that undertaking such unpaid work is acceptable.

 

17. Challenge over Twitter post by the Trust’s Nominated Club Director a. TW further challenged DR over his Twitter post of 24th January 2020 in which he indicated that he was seeking legal advice about what constitutes constructive dismissal of a Director. b. This tweet was inappropriate at a time when two allegations against DR were under investigation and as the outcome was that there was no case to answer this was improper. c. The tweet had alerted fans to Board conflict and had disclosed Board confidential matters. d. KH confirmed that following the tweet he had been approached by fans concerned about what was happening on the Trust Board. e. DR stated that his tweet did not mention Trust Oldham or the Club, but reflected his concern that the multiple allegations against him were being pursued under a flawed Trust Code of Conduct. f. DR alleged that the procedure was flawed because the due process had not been outlined to him, he had not been provided with a written copy of the evidence against him and without written allegations he could not access legal representation under the Trust Directors Indemnity insurance. g. TW read out the relevant paragraph from the Code of Conduct to the Board.

 

18. Challenge over Restriction of Board Contact by the Trust’s Nominated Club Director a. From the chair, TW criticised DR for insisting on all communication with him from the Board being in writing and eschewing verbal contact during the period when the allegations against him were being investigated. b. KH confirmed that disappointingly DR had indicated that he wanted all communication with himself to be in writing. c. DR said that in view of the non-provision of written specification of the allegations against him he wanted all contact to be formally recorded. d. He also indicated that he wanted contact with him to be restricted to matters of critical importance whilst he concentrated on dealing with the allegations against him. AB TW

 

19. Immediate Actions Resolved a. After much further discussion the Board resolved that following immediate steps should be taken: i. Trust Directors Code of Conduct: All directors must read, review and sign the current Code and bring it for the next meeting. It is critically important that the Trust rep accepts this code. TW will re-circulate it before the March Trust Board meeting. ii. Trust’s Nominated Club Director Job Description: TW will re-circulate this document for review by all Directors so that it can be amended as required and the Trust’s Nominated Club Director will be expected to sign it at the March Trust Board Meeting. iii. Trust’s Nominated Club Director Three Month Probationary Period: after signing the updated job description the Trust’s Nominated Club Director will be subject to a three-month probationary period in the new role and subject to detailed review of his performance in the role and progress against targets set. b. AB asked if the whole Board agreed to the approach based on the three steps and assent by the Trust’s Nominated Club Director to them at the March Trust Board meeting. c. The majority view was that this was the appropriate way forward. d. Director MH stated that he could not agree as he no longer trusted nor supported the Trust’s Nominated Club Director and he would now need to reconsider if he could continue as a Trust Director. e. TW also stated she understood MH’s reasons and the steps proposed but she too needed review if she could continue to support the Trust’s Nominated Club Director in his role. She will advise the Board as soon as she can whether she can remain a Trust Director.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by underdog

[underdog]

1 hour ago, disjointed said:

I have always been of the opinion that the 3 per cent was a valuable asset, I may have been wrong and perhaps we need to let it go. 

 

I have drafted the Memo of understanding for the Trust and with the club. IT states our shareholder rights......to summarise.

This is the minimum the 3% would give with FSA questions we should be asking.

a)      Section 423. To view Full accounts. This will dependant of when the meetings are held and before submittal to Companies house. Or half yearly accounts minimum.

b)      Revenue split in appropriate major categories.

c)      Expenditure split in appropriate major categories.

d)   Outstanding debtor and creditors figures in relation to transfer fees.

e)   Directors’ remuneration and rewards.

f)    Related party transactions.

g)   Significant capital expenditure.

h)   Confirmation of any ‘significant’ arrears and how these will be repaid.

i)    Section 116. Shareholder’s register. To inspect a list of the organisations/ individuals with significant ownership interests at every meeting.

j)    Board membership and any relevant sub-committee memberships.

k)   A list of individuals with senior responsibility for decision-making and explanation of roles and responsibilities.

l)    Compliance with ‘Financial Fair Play’ obligations.

m)  Section 32. To be given up to date constitutional documents. IE Memorandum of association and Articles of Association.

n)   Section 229. Terms of Directors’ service level agreements if any.

o)   Section 238. Terms of Directors indemnity Provisions.

p)   Section 291. Copy of any written resolution proposed by directors since the last Trust/Club meeting. 

q)   Section 744: To inspect and receive copies of the register of holders of debentures for every meeting.

 

What is the additional and most important parts ARE

1) The right to appoint and remove our own supporter rep to the club board

2) Equal parity voting at club board level

3) Have to right to vote is there is a proposal to dissolve the business of OAFC 2004 Ltd

 

Its the share holding that needs to be saved, not necesarily the Trust as the vehicle to drive it.

 

Then you have to factor in the ACV with the current landlord

 

The Trust as a vehicle is dead, it needs experienced people with the right skillset to hold a bigger company to account. It has failed because the volunteers who stepped up, did not necesarily have those skills. That is why it failed, accountability.

 

There are fans in the EFL who would give their right arm to have what we have....Charlton Athletic Trust being one. IT works in clubs like Grimsby, why it can;t work for us I do not know.

 

What happens next will require an EGM, there is then a real danger of it being infiltrated and the 3% is then lost to the fan base with little fight

 

SOS......Save our Shareholding

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by underdog

[LightDN123]

Proves that the trust is wank. 

[underdog]

1 hour ago, Lee Sinnott said:

Give the club their 3 percent back, let them move the club out of the borough and let the rest of us get on with our lives...

EFL may struggle to sanction the move as we have a lease until 2031 and a stadium

 

Council will be loathed to see the club move too, unless there is a phoenix club

 

[BP1960]

Is it possible the PTB  committee could oust the Trust committee and influence the club that way?

[underdog]

Just now, BP1960 said:

Is it possible the PTB  committee could oust the Trust committee and influence the club that way?

I was under the impression the PTB did not want the responsibility of the Shareholding

 

However, now, who knows. I will presume they are digesting the news like we all are

 

The Trust currently is in limbo, it cannot make any business decisions until an EGM is called to elect new directors....a mess

[Bobledgersheart]

2 minutes ago, BP1960 said:

Is it possible the PTB  committee could oust the Trust committee and influence the club that way?

Think it's more likely to happen the other way round.

 

AL's men are already on board aren't they ?

[lookersstandandy]

1 hour ago, disjointed said:

I have always been of the opinion that the 3 per cent was a valuable asset, I may have been wrong and perhaps we need to let it go. 

It is of value.... used correctly, with competent and board room experienced people in possession of it. An ex copper is unlikely to be well qualified, nor a small business owner. We need someone with good corporate governance experience and/or someone who has significant experience of running a medium sized business.

Edited August 5, 2020 by lookersstandandy

[underdog]

6 minutes ago, Bobledgersheart said:

Think it's more likely to happen the other way round.

 

AL's men are already on board aren't they ?

No they have to pass an AGM, a members vote...or as the case now an EGM

 

thats crucial, how many members will join to influence voting?

[underdog]

1 hour ago, lookersstandandy said:

It is of value.... used correctly, with competent and board room experienced people in possession of it. An ex copper is unlikely to be well qualified, nor a small business owner. We need someone with good corporate governance experience and/or someone who has significant experience of running a medium sized business.

spot on......Its David V Goliath......you are entering a pro-owner selected board.

 

Andy B, who no longer poss on here, suggested that the supporter rep ideally should NOT be a fan first but a business person with board room skills. And like every company, it should be advertised, job spec, interview ect and then voted on by the membership. I would have loved to have seen Jason Flynn (businessman and MD at JP Morgan) give it a bash, but he sadlly resigned over summer.

 

It has failed because of unpaid, volunteers working a few hours a week, with a varied skills set (not necesarily the right skillset), trying to hold a bigger business to account.  Ball juggling on three fronts

 

1) Club via share holding entitlement

2) ACV via with the landlord - note the loss of little wembly is impending and the ACV needs reneweing

3) FLG and their proposed buyout of the landlord

 

It is now in danger of being infiltrated and the shareholding becoming totally useless, the ACV NOT being renewed which helps the landlord too

 

Forgot to add: FSA suggest the supporter rep to the board role should between two people

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by underdog
FSA guidance

[Chaddyexile84]

13 hours ago, underdog said:

From website published in January. mentions Direct Mark Harrington proposal under lastly, any other business

 

https://trustoldham.co.uk/2020/01/21/trust-january-meeting-an-update-for-fans/

Trust Director: Mark Harrington proposed a formal review of the social media/communication policy and how the Trust’s OAFC Rep is engaging in the public domain using this method. Additional Concerns have been by a fans if it is the right method to use. It was agreed that two Trust directors not immediately involved with these issues will be appointed to review the concerns and will report back at our February meeting.

 

https://trustoldham.co.uk/2020/01/30/board-meeting-january-2020/

Trust Jan meeting notes published in July.

2. Complaint a. A complaint by a Trust member against a Director had been logged by email and the member also raised the issue in person at the open forum. b. The Trust acknowledged a complaint which was registered with the Vice-Chair in the Chair’s absence. c. Further discussion after the complaint had been raised was not appropriate and would have constituted a breach of process. d. The Trust Vice-Chair applied the Trust Code of Conduct. e. There would be no further comment until the assigned team has completed an investigation and reported back to the Vice-Chair. f. AB and KB were appointed as they were independent of any aspect of the complaint.

 

Outcome is in the Feb  notes. Published in July

https://trustoldham.co.uk/2020/02/28/board-meeting-february-2020/

 

14. Review of Role of Trust Nominated Director a. This review had been proposed at the January Board meeting by MH. b. The initial impetus was a desire for to investigate the social media postings of DR and this had been subsumed with the investigation of the fan complaint about the same matter. c. AB had volunteered to conduct the investigation into the complaint under the Trust’s Code of Conduct.

 

15. Outcome of Investigation into Fan Complaint a. The investigation had been undertaken by AB and KB under the terms of the Trust’s Code of Conduct. b. The result of the investigation was that both AB and KB concluded that there was no DR ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL PW further disciplinary action should be taken and the Trust’s Club Board Director should not be removed from his position. c. AB stated that there is some evidence that the DR could have made better judgements about his social media on a number of occasions but these did not amount to critically important failings. d. DR had previously been given appropriate advice as to future conduct by EG in respect of this matter as an appropriate response to DR as an individual. e. AB recommends more prescriptive wording in the Trust Club Director job description with regards to social media presence and postings. f. TW explained that the Trust had this job description in draft form for several months and although previously on the agenda, it was never discussed or approved. g. DR pointed out that the Social Media Policy in its current format is flawed and needs more work and that Trust Directors could not sign it as it stands as it needs revision.

 

16. Allegation of Undeclared Conflict of Interest a. TW asked DR what work paid/unpaid he has done for the club, as his own company website lists the Club as a client under the company’s portfolio of work b. TW asked specifically what work was undertaken during Aug-October 2019 and was this work paid or unpaid? c. If paid, had it been subject to a proper tendering process? d. DR explained that it was unpaid work that involved match day promotional work and this had been explained previously in meetings. e. TW challenged whether DR had disclosed this work for the Club and stated that as Acting Chair and Secretary she did not agree that it had been and had no recollection of any such declaration and said that she would look back at notes of previous meetings to confirm this. f. JF also expressed concern that DR had done work or the Club and expected that fans would have an adverse perception of it. g. DR explained he has checked his unpaid work with the FSA and they are happy that undertaking such unpaid work is acceptable.

 

17. Challenge over Twitter post by the Trust’s Nominated Club Director a. TW further challenged DR over his Twitter post of 24th January 2020 in which he indicated that he was seeking legal advice about what constitutes constructive dismissal of a Director. b. This tweet was inappropriate at a time when two allegations against DR were under investigation and as the outcome was that there was no case to answer this was improper. c. The tweet had alerted fans to Board conflict and had disclosed Board confidential matters. d. KH confirmed that following the tweet he had been approached by fans concerned about what was happening on the Trust Board. e. DR stated that his tweet did not mention Trust Oldham or the Club, but reflected his concern that the multiple allegations against him were being pursued under a flawed Trust Code of Conduct. f. DR alleged that the procedure was flawed because the due process had not been outlined to him, he had not been provided with a written copy of the evidence against him and without written allegations he could not access legal representation under the Trust Directors Indemnity insurance. g. TW read out the relevant paragraph from the Code of Conduct to the Board.

 

18. Challenge over Restriction of Board Contact by the Trust’s Nominated Club Director a. From the chair, TW criticised DR for insisting on all communication with him from the Board being in writing and eschewing verbal contact during the period when the allegations against him were being investigated. b. KH confirmed that disappointingly DR had indicated that he wanted all communication with himself to be in writing. c. DR said that in view of the non-provision of written specification of the allegations against him he wanted all contact to be formally recorded. d. He also indicated that he wanted contact with him to be restricted to matters of critical importance whilst he concentrated on dealing with the allegations against him. AB TW

 

19. Immediate Actions Resolved a. After much further discussion the Board resolved that following immediate steps should be taken: i. Trust Directors Code of Conduct: All directors must read, review and sign the current Code and bring it for the next meeting. It is critically important that the Trust rep accepts this code. TW will re-circulate it before the March Trust Board meeting. ii. Trust’s Nominated Club Director Job Description: TW will re-circulate this document for review by all Directors so that it can be amended as required and the Trust’s Nominated Club Director will be expected to sign it at the March Trust Board Meeting. iii. Trust’s Nominated Club Director Three Month Probationary Period: after signing the updated job description the Trust’s Nominated Club Director will be subject to a three-month probationary period in the new role and subject to detailed review of his performance in the role and progress against targets set. b. AB asked if the whole Board agreed to the approach based on the three steps and assent by the Trust’s Nominated Club Director to them at the March Trust Board meeting. c. The majority view was that this was the appropriate way forward. d. Director MH stated that he could not agree as he no longer trusted nor supported the Trust’s Nominated Club Director and he would now need to reconsider if he could continue as a Trust Director. e. TW also stated she understood MH’s reasons and the steps proposed but she too needed review if she could continue to support the Trust’s Nominated Club Director in his role. She will advise the Board as soon as she can whether she can remain a Trust Director.

 

 

fair enough - apologies, I don’t tend to go on the Trust website 

 

those minutes are fairly damning - seems he holds the rest of you in the same contempt he does the supporters 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Chaddyexile84

[underdog]

5 hours ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

fair enough - apologies, I don’t tend to go on the Trust website 

 

those minutes are fairly damning - seems he holds the rest of you in the same contempt he does the supporters 

no need to apologies at all. 

 

As an organisation it has to make available its meeting notes. The Trust publishes them for all to see on its website.

 

The last 12 months is then there for members to look at the decisions made, struggles ect and to make informed decisions on elections when voting.

 

However this is now blown out of the water with resignations that an EGM will have to be called in order for it legally, to get through everyday business stuff