Kevin Birkett appointed as SLO

[pk200]

Just now, wiseowl said:

Does this mean the site is connected to, or run by, the Trust?

 

I had no idea. I can confirm that I tried to re-join on at least 8 occasions - just assumed someone recognised my IP address and knocked me back (because I set up a meeting with Corney??).

 

When the Scholes saga blew up, I think the site suddenly opened up without the usual checks - does that mean I`ll be kicked off again soon? 

No my error in confusing Trust with OWTB, sorry.

[wiseowl]

ok - cheers pk

[underdog]

2 hours ago, Lukers1 said:

Can someone translate this for me?.

TBH I wondering who Oldham Trust is.....

[Lukers1]

It's trust Oldham innit?

[wiseowl]

15 hours ago, Andy b said:

The key point is that owners of football clubs typically don’t want supporters trusts hanging around, asking questions and interfering. We start from that position meaning that achieving a positive relationship which works for both parties is always going to be challenging. 

 

I wouldn’t agree that relationships with the current owner have broken down rather they have been amicable but simply we haven’t been getting out of the relationship we need (see point one). We have been kept at arms length. You will be aware that few people have been brought into AL’s circle of trust. 

 

What that means is that we have to muddle through and use what we have in our armoury to achieve some sort of influence. That includes our legal rights and hopefully being able credibly say that we speak on behalf of thousands of fans. Making a nuisance of ourselves to good effect is probably the best a trust expect to can achieve. 

 

What is clear to me is that faith in the trust is tarnished by the past and particulary the corney years when, as an outsider, it appeared to do very little to effect any change within the club. The relationshop

worked for SC and the trust didn’t push back enough.

 

we are now taking a different approach with the current owner and after 11 months of his ownership (and largely giving him the benefit of the doubt) are asking the awkward questions, turning the screw a little and making our presence felt. That is fundamentally what our fans want and it’s the right thing to do in the circumstances.

 

the trust has embarked on a mini project in that regard and I would ask that it is judged on that as a signal of its future long term intent (under the steer of new directors alongside existing ones with years of experience) rather than the past. 

 

i’d be interested in hearing your alternatives and the change you allude to. With all due respect its  difficult to accept a suggestion that the trust needs to change without a suggestion of what that change needs to look like 

 

 

Andy - thank you for the articulate reply.

 

I won't go into detail because it's not about me and my ideas. As you know, however, I previously took time out to meet with a previous Trust Chairman and another Trust Director and put forward many ideas. Hopefully, they were logged and discussed subsequently as Diane, in particular, thought that a couple were very good.

 

Fundamental though, was my view that the Trust should become independent of the club. You have mentioned that the Trust's reputation may have been tarnished by past actions. I believe you would increase membership significantly via the independent route, because that would banish any fears that certain people within the Trust might operate via a "self-serving" agenda rather than one for the good of all supporters.

 

Until it is independent, I won't join and I know other fans who won't. I have little doubt that the usual respondents might reply with "we don't want your type anyway- Corneyphile!" etc. and therein lies the problem; Trust Oldham is not a representative group - it seems to attract a "certain type" (or did - that has changed a little following the anger over ScholesGate).

 

[kowenicki]

5 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Andy - thank you for the articulate reply.

 

I won't go into detail because it's not about me and my ideas. As you know, however, I previously took time out to meet with a previous Trust Chairman and another Trust Director and put forward many ideas. Hopefully, they were logged and discussed subsequently as Diane, in particular, thought that a couple were very good.

 

Fundamental though, was my view that the Trust should become independent of the club. You have mentioned that the Trust's reputation may have been tarnished by past actions. I believe you would increase membership significantly via the independent route, because that would banish any fears that certain people within the Trust might operate via a "self-serving" agenda rather than one for the good of all supporters.

 

Until it is independent, I won't join and I know other fans who won't. I have little doubt that the usual respondents might reply with "we don't want your type anyway- Corneyphile!" etc. and therein lies the problem; Trust Oldham is not a representative group - it seems to attract a "certain type" (or did - that has changed a little following the anger over ScholesGate).

 

 

I’ve always thought this too.  The Trust shouldn’t be ‘wearing two hats’. 

 

 

[League one forever]

31 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Andy - thank you for the articulate reply.

 

I won't go into detail because it's not about me and my ideas. As you know, however, I previously took time out to meet with a previous Trust Chairman and another Trust Director and put forward many ideas. Hopefully, they were logged and discussed subsequently as Diane, in particular, thought that a couple were very good.

 

Fundamental though, was my view that the Trust should become independent of the club. You have mentioned that the Trust's reputation may have been tarnished by past actions. I believe you would increase membership significantly via the independent route, because that would banish any fears that certain people within the Trust might operate via a "self-serving" agenda rather than one for the good of all supporters.

 

Until it is independent, I won't join and I know other fans who won't. I have little doubt that the usual respondents might reply with "we don't want your type anyway- Corneyphile!" etc. and therein lies the problem; Trust Oldham is not a representative group - it seems to attract a "certain type" (or did - that has changed a little following the anger over ScholesGate).

 

Sorry but your talking bollocks. Again. 

 

There is one group (the trust) who have 3% stake in the club. They, no matter what approach they try get shafted by the incumbent owner; because quite simply the owner doesn’t want to explain himself to people who ask questions they don’t like. It’s that simple. 

 

The other is independent group as you put it. Who will do what exactly? Organise walks down sheepfoot lane? Hold placards outside the ground? The idea that AL will listen to either group is laughable. 

 

Finally.  It’s got nothing to do with ‘types’ you are ‘type’ that wanted change, and then got seduced by Corney.  You then very quickly started backtracking on wanting change, and telling fans we must understand the owners position. Sounds quite self serving to me. . . Perception is projection. There is zero difference between you and the ‘type’ you are referring to. The only difference I can see is that you think your intellectually superior to other the ‘type’ and therefore your opinion/view of things is more valid. It’s not. 

 

 

[Matt]

10 hours ago, singe said:

It's already circulated.

 

 

'Liked' by Bob.

[Matt]

9 hours ago, wiseowl said:

Does this mean the site is connected to, or run by, the Trust?

 

I had no idea. I can confirm that I tried to re-join on at least 8 occasions - just assumed someone recognised my IP address and knocked me back (because I set up a meeting with Corney??).

 

When the Scholes saga blew up, I think the site suddenly opened up without the usual checks - does that mean I`ll be kicked off again soon? 

 

Nope. OWTB is completely independent of other entities, that's the way we like it.

 

I recently trawled through the backlog of validations after a long hiatus, I apologise if it's taken longer than expected for you to return to accessing OWTB fully.

 

 

[Andy b]

8 hours ago, wiseowl said:

Andy - thank you for the articulate reply.

 

I won't go into detail because it's not about me and my ideas. As you know, however, I previously took time out to meet with a previous Trust Chairman and another Trust Director and put forward many ideas. Hopefully, they were logged and discussed subsequently as Diane, in particular, thought that a couple were very good.

 

Fundamental though, was my view that the Trust should become independent of the club. You have mentioned that the Trust's reputation may have been tarnished by past actions. I believe you would increase membership significantly via the independent route, because that would banish any fears that certain people within the Trust might operate via a "self-serving" agenda rather than one for the good of all supporters.

 

Until it is independent, I won't join and I know other fans who won't. I have little doubt that the usual respondents might reply with "we don't want your type anyway- Corneyphile!" etc. and therein lies the problem; Trust Oldham is not a representative group - it seems to attract a "certain type" (or did - that has changed a little following the anger over ScholesGate).

 

That’s a fair point and something which has been on my mind since I joined the trust board.

 

1) Independence = freedoms, able to really fully (and openly) represent fans and effectively say and do what we like 

 

2) A share in the club = in theory a right to have a say within the club, be listened to, have a vote and access certain information (on behalf of fans).

 

Whether the trust can be an effective representative body under 2) depends on the constraints that the Trust Directors let it impose on them. There are legal constraints which we can do nothing about but beyond that it is about willingness to use the ownership right to best effect and not let it overly constrain our ability to represent fans and critically to recognise when it is compromising us in that regard.

 

It must come with some benefits but admittedly we haven’t found the sweet spot yet. Ican understand why people haven’t seen the benefit in joining the trust over recent years when its focus seems to have been on its ownership in the club rather than looking outwards to connect with and represent fans.

 

What i would say is that the focus at this point in time is representing our fans, getting their concerns across and getting the owner to listen and act on those. The trust is acting more as an independent body than it ever has in that regard. However it does this from a position that it   owns a bit of the club. That need not be a conflict in theory, though it’s a bit of a tightrope at times I admit. We need to keep our eyes open

 

 

 

 

[singe]

28 minutes ago, Matt said:

 

'Liked' by Bob.

Yes, and I wonder who the other two were.

[singe]

10 hours ago, wiseowl said:

Andy - thank you for the articulate reply.

 

I won't go into detail because it's not about me and my ideas. As you know, however, I previously took time out to meet with a previous Trust Chairman and another Trust Director and put forward many ideas. Hopefully, they were logged and discussed subsequently as Diane, in particular, thought that a couple were very good.

 

Fundamental though, was my view that the Trust should become independent of the club. You have mentioned that the Trust's reputation may have been tarnished by past actions. I believe you would increase membership significantly via the independent route, because that would banish any fears that certain people within the Trust might operate via a "self-serving" agenda rather than one for the good of all supporters.

 

Until it is independent, I won't join and I know other fans who won't. I have little doubt that the usual respondents might reply with "we don't want your type anyway- Corneyphile!" etc. and therein lies the problem; Trust Oldham is not a representative group - it seems to attract a "certain type" (or did - that has changed a little following the anger over ScholesGate).

 

Funny thing the independence route, because I thought you were going to go talk with Simon Corney as an independenet neutral which I thought fair, but you came back very biased. So it's a bit rich you asking them to be more independent,as at the time they seemed to feel exactly the same as you did.

 

I've always argued the Trust should be more independent, but re-joined because I could see that having the stake was better than not having it. And also the recent change to safeguarding the groundor at least  benefitting from a move. A Trust that disposes of it's shares is absolutely impotent and about as much use as 25W in the floodlights shining a light on the activities of the owner..

I do believe that the Trust should have been more vocal and challenging recently, and I think the Trust has moved more in that direction despite losing a few of the leading players. A price worth paying. Basically the more formal approach to it's role with Lemsagem is welcome.

I urge you to join the Trust, I am sure they are now approaching everything in a way that you would think more acceptable.

[oafcmetty]

I don't think it's the construct which is the problem, more the fact that some get starstruck when given a bit of insider info and access to the folks in positions of power at the club.

 

New appointments to the trust board more recently have been more promising in this regard, so I'd hope the Trust would start to operate in a more 'challenging' rather than accommodating frame of mind.

[Andy b]

11 minutes ago, oafcmetty said:

I don't think it's the construct which is the problem, more the fact that some get starstruck when given a bit of insider info and access to the folks in positions of power at the club.

 

New appointments to the trust board more recently have been more promising in this regard, so I'd hope the Trust would start to operate in a more 'challenging' rather than accommodating frame of mind.

That’s an interesting way of framing it. Good observation  

[jorvik_latic]

19 minutes ago, oafcmetty said:

I don't think it's the construct which is the problem, more the fact that some get starstruck when given a bit of insider info and access to the folks in positions of power at the club.

 

New appointments to the trust board more recently have been more promising in this regard, so I'd hope the Trust would start to operate in a more 'challenging' rather than accommodating frame of mind.

 

You didn't hear about it much but the previous Trust board were very challenging to the previous owner.

[wiseowl]

9 hours ago, League one forever said:

Sorry but your talking bollocks. Again. 

 

There is one group (the trust) who have 3% stake in the club. They, no matter what approach they try get shafted by the incumbent owner; because quite simply the owner doesn’t want to explain himself to people who ask questions they don’t like. It’s that simple. 

 

The other is independent group as you put it. Who will do what exactly? Organise walks down sheepfoot lane? Hold placards outside the ground? The idea that AL will listen to either group is laughable. 

 

Finally.  It’s got nothing to do with ‘types’ you are ‘type’ that wanted change, and then got seduced by Corney.  You then very quickly started backtracking on wanting change, and telling fans we must understand the owners position. Sounds quite self serving to me. . . Perception is projection. There is zero difference between you and the ‘type’ you are referring to. The only difference I can see is that you think your intellectually superior to other the ‘type’ and therefore your opinion/view of things is more valid. It’s not. 

 

 

League one - you misunderstand what I said. I don't want 2 separate groups - we don't have a big enough fan base. I just think if the Trust went independent, more would join and it would be a stronger, more representative voice. Andy b agrees that might have merit.

 

As for me getting seduced by Corney - absolute nonsense - I had arranged the first meeting where we saw some enlightening things (such as a list of wages we were paying, which quashed some fans' accusations we were paying peanuts) and a second meeting was in the offing. Things then turned silly, with this Chuckle fella, for example, putting it about my friend Simon and I had been on a sponsored walk together. Absolute utter bollocks, I never knew the man at all before the fans' meeting.

 

I then started receiving personal insults and the odd veiled threat and it was clear that, in this age of people believing anything on social media, that a distinct % had me down as a mate of Corney's. So, it all seemed pretty pointless after that.

 

In any event, Shex returned as manager and saved our bacon and things quitened down.

 

Anyone who knows me will vouch I am the most grounded, beer swilling individual you could meet and I definitely don't think I am intellectually superior to anyone, League one - what on Earth makes you think that?

[Andy b]

6 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

League one - you misunderstand what I said. I don't want 2 separate groups - we don't have a big enough fan base. I just think if the Trust went independent, more would join and it would be a stronger, more representative voice. Andy b agrees that might have merit.

 

As for me getting seduced by Corney - absolute nonsense - I had arranged the first meeting where we saw some enlightening things (such as a list of wages we were paying, which quashed some fans' accusations we were paying peanuts) and a second meeting was in the offing. Things then turned silly, with this Chuckle fella, for example, putting it about my friend Simon and I had been on a sponsored walk together. Absolute utter bollocks, I never knew the man at all before the fans' meeting.

 

I then started receiving personal insults and the odd veiled threat and it was clear that, in this age of people believing anything on social media, that a distinct % had me down as a mate of Corney's. So, it all seemed pretty pointless after that.

 

In any event, Shex returned as manager and saved our bacon and things quitened down.

 

Anyone who knows me will vouch I am the most grounded, beer swilling individual you could meet and I definitely don't think I am intellectually superior to anyone, League one - what on Earth makes you think that?

For the avoidance of doubt I have not said that the trust going independent had merit and am certainly not making a case for such a move. That doesn’t mean I don’t debate these things in my own mind and    I can see why some might form the view that independence is a perferred scenario.

 

I acknowledge the added challenges which come from having ownership and seeking to act first and foremost for fans at the same time. I believe there is a way of negotiating that however. 

[underdog]

44 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

You didn't hear about it much but the previous Trust board were very challenging to the previous owner.

Jorvik is right, what we have decided now is based on past learning experiences with ex Owner, that we are not going to go down that path again.

 

The previous owner IMO was more PR savvy, the current owner invites more detailed questioning and the fans have decided that they too want to question more. 120 plus fans in a room is a snapshot of the mood

[Andy b]

26 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

You didn't hear about it much but the previous Trust board were very challenging to the previous owner.

Sorry Jorvik, I didn’t mean to suggest the previous trust board was not effective in this regard. You have hit the nail on the head there though. The challenge wasn’t visible and thus, to some, it never happened.

 

All about striking the right balance between loyalty to fans and loyalty to its ownership duties and responsibilities 

[singe]

26 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

You didn't hear about it much but the previous Trust board were very challenging to the previous owner.

It's a shame that Jorvik. I certainly had not realised. I think the fact that the two previous Board Reps went to work for the owner overshadowed undoubted work done. I think more transparency in actions and decision making will benefit the Trust in the long run. 

[jorvik_latic]

8 minutes ago, singe said:

It's a shame that Jorvik. I certainly had not realised. I think the fact that the two previous Board Reps went to work for the owner overshadowed undoubted work done. I think more transparency in actions and decision making will benefit the Trust in the long run. 

 

There was a lot going on in the background that it wasn't really in anyone's best interests to hear about it, it was pretty sensitive. We knew that the fans not hearing about it would make it look like we weren't doing much but we were happy with that as long as we knew we were doing what was best for the future of the club on behalf of the fans. 

[underdog]

4 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

There was a lot going on in the background that it wasn't really in anyone's best interests to hear about it, it was pretty sensitive. We knew that the fans not hearing about it would make it look like we weren't doing much but we were happy with that as long as we knew we were doing what was best for the future of the club on behalf of the fans. 

Spot on my friend

 

Just like the time is now right to be seen more assertive with the help and support of supporters direct and the excellent foundations you laid with them

[underdog]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

 

Nope. OWTB is completely independent of other entities, that's the way we like it.

 

I recently trawled through the backlog of validations after a long hiatus, I apologise if it's taken longer than expected for you to return to accessing OWTB fully.

 

 

Hope you are well Matt

[wiseowl]

On 4/2/2019 at 8:21 AM, Monty Burns said:

No truly wise man would ever refer to himself as such.

Agree, Monty.

 

My username derives from a reference to Oldham's Owls and the motto "sapere aude" - absolutely nothing to do with my wisdom, or lack of 

[League one forever]

8 hours ago, wiseowl said:

League one - you misunderstand what I said. I don't want 2 separate groups - we don't have a big enough fan base. I just think if the Trust went independent, more would join and it would be a stronger, more representative voice. Andy b agrees that might have merit.

 

As for me getting seduced by Corney - absolute nonsense - I had arranged the first meeting where we saw some enlightening things (such as a list of wages we were paying, which quashed some fans' accusations we were paying peanuts) and a second meeting was in the offing. Things then turned silly, with this Chuckle fella, for example, putting it about my friend Simon and I had been on a sponsored walk together. Absolute utter bollocks, I never knew the man at all before the fans' meeting.

 

I then started receiving personal insults and the odd veiled threat and it was clear that, in this age of people believing anything on social media, that a distinct % had me down as a mate of Corney's. So, it all seemed pretty pointless after that.

 

In any event, Shex returned as manager and saved our bacon and things quitened down.

 

Anyone who knows me will vouch I am the most grounded, beer swilling individual you could meet and I definitely don't think I am intellectually superior to anyone, League one - what on Earth makes you think that?

I disagree about an independent group. It would be absolutely pointless. An be able to affect nothing. As has been said the best we can expect from the trust is their current position, which is to be more public and assertive with how they hold the owner to account. 

 

The superiority point, is multi faceted. Your tone changed massively after meeting Corney. I’m not suggesting you went for dinner. However it came across that you enjoyed being involved- fair enough. But then you criticise others for doing exactly the same. . .calling them ‘types’  After meeting Corney you became quite derogatory to some people’s questions- the same ones that you had asked to be emailed to you. 

 

The point is this. You, chuckle, underdog, Andy B all have one thing in common you love the club enough to have wanted or to want to be involved. Therefore you above most should see what a hard job it is, and not be calling people ‘types’ or asking for independent groups. 

 

You obviously didn’t enjoy being accountable. So enjoy being fan, and support those who are preapared to be shot at.