BPAS PODCAST SEASON 2: 1st Nov '21 Episode 56: Cheap, Inexperienced & Risky

[BPAS]

Another home defeat, another inexplicablity decent home "attendance" and more calls of Curle out must mean it's Monday and time to poke our head back inside the festering wound that is Oldham Athletic...

 

Please help us do the work we do by visiting https://www.oafcpodcast.co.uk/, subscribing and looking in our online shop. We'll be adding more products in the coming weeks and months and would be grateful if you purchased the odd one or two to show your support!

 

Follow the show on Twitter, Instagram & Facebook @oafcpodcast.

 

Download and listen to the podcast via the FanHub app, where content creators and fans alike are rewarded for getting involved #ctg. Read more about FanHub here: https://fan-hub.com/

 

You can find out more about Push The Boundary by visiting them at https://pushtheboundary.co.uk/ and following on Twitter @PTB_OAFC. Find out more about OASF at http://www.trustoldham.org/

 

Title music is by Manchester DJ and producer Starion find out more at https://redlaserrecords.bandcamp.com/

 

For some reason the Spotify link isn't embedding this morning, so see below links;

 

https://www.oafcpodcast.co.uk/podcast/episode/33393974/ep56-cheap-inexperienced-and-risky

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ep-56-cheap-inexperienced-risky/id1531769744?i=1000540352297

 

 

[peanuts2]

Re the boycott of the Forrest green home game would that be a good opertunity to run another March and exsternal prostest similar to the one pre Hartlepool? Reiterates that we are there but ain't going in ?

[disjointed]

The Port Vale attendance is a good idea, don't be surprised if AL takes away pay on the day for this one though. 

[basilrobbie]

You packed a load into that hour, well done.

 

Starting with the football : I'm no fan of Keith Curle. But playing devil's advocate for a minute, he seems to be doing the job with one hand tied behind his back, and he is at least keeping you in touch with the other stragglers (not a great claim I know, but still...). 

 

The whole debate about 3-5-2 and whether you have the players for it interested me, because it is a deeply traditional conversation for fans to have and yet I think that it is becoming a bit outmoded. We have had this discussion about Critchley at Blackpool, where some fans have in the past criticised him for tinkering too much. . He seems to switch personnel and formations from week to week, and has recruited players who can cope with that. It makes us unpredictable, for one thing, and explains the number of genuine utility players we have had at the club in the last eighteen months. I am one of a growing band who don't think he is wedded to any particular approach - and he reflects a modern, progressive style of coaching in taking this stance.

 

Of course, all this is predicated upon an owner who is backing him with significant investment that started before COVID and has continued through it. You don't have that, and I think to some extent that any discussion about removing Curle really focuses on the wrong target.

 

I agreed with the bit at the end about who the four sides in most danger are. Your next five games are tough and if you were offered five points from them now, would you not take it?  For comparison :

 

Carlisle play Barrow (h), Exeter (a), Harrogate (h), Walsall (h), Mansfield (a)

 

Scunny play Salford (h), Mansfield (a), Leyton Orient (h), Bradford (h), Stevenage (a)

 

Stevenage face Mansfield (h), Colchester (h), Rochdale (a), Tranmere (a), Scunthorpe (h)

 

I suppose Mansfield could pull clear from the bottom or get sucked backed into trouble, on that basis.

 

Off the field :

 

The Port Vale/Forest Green approach is quite ingenious - and I feel does carry some risks about :

 

* mixed messages - you would have to be very clear about why you were doing this as a double header, and I think getting helpful media coverage would be vital

 

* the chance that some people who went for the Vale game would go back again, several times

 

* subsiding (indirectly) the cost-cutting regime in place

 

But there is no "right" approach here, and the Survey you did does lead you in this direction to some degree. On that, I think the 48% figure was much the more significant of the two ; I think asking people who are entrenched in the habit of going and possibly very apolitical to give it up is much more of an ask than asking people who are pre-disposed to go to indulge themselves "with permission". Maybe that is just me.

 

The huge number of vacancies at the club rings real alarm bells with me. It suggests not only a lack of leadership or a plan, but that apathy is setting in at the top - and that is me being charitable about it. You are going to need hard work, energy and enterprise to get out of this mess. I don't see any evidence of I in the boardroom, and unfortunately for you the EFL is not set up to challenge owners who are merely indolent and incompetent - the notion of enlightened stewardship does not seem to have reached their HQ as yet.

 

 

 

 

[Dave_Og]

9 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

 

the EFL is not set up to challenge owners who are merely indolent and incompetent - the notion of enlightened stewardship does not seem to have reached their HQ as yet.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really see that as their job.  Some clubs will always be better run than others just like any other business.  Those that are better run will generally prosper and they deserve to  The last thing any regulator should do is to tell any business how to run itself day to day

[basilrobbie]

55 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

I don't really see that as their job.  Some clubs will always be better run than others just like any other business.  Those that are better run will generally prosper and they deserve to  The last thing any regulator should do is to tell any business how to run itself day to day

 

55 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

 

I don't think that regulators should interfere in day to day operations either. But they should be able to identify, disseminate and promulgate best practice. It is what the major Ombudsmen are charged with doing, as well as their day job.  

 

The "service" that the EFL provides is for the benefit of, and at the behest of, club owners.  We deserve far better.

[Dave_Og]

1 minute ago, basilrobbie said:

 

 

I don't think that regulators should interfere in day to day operations either. But they should be able to identify, disseminate and promulgate best practice. It is what the major Ombudsmen are charged with doing, as well as their day job.  

 

The "service" that the EFL provides is for the benefit of, and at the behest of, club owners.  We deserve far better.

Don't disagree wit that.  But hard to see what they could do in practical terms.

[100milesaway]

What I don't understand is, we have got the club sinking like the Titanic . With fans ( not enough of them mind ) screaming for action from the owner.

 

But week in, week out, the clowns say nothing, do nothing, and seem oblivious the the disaster looming on the horizon. 

 

They appear to care not a jot, as one defeat follows another. Are they prepared to continue with their couldn't care less attitude into the National league and beyond?

 

What legal motive could they possibly have, to just stand by and let the club slide into oblivion ?

 

For God's sake Abdullah, face up to the fans, face up to the plight that you have dragged the club into, do that for heaven's sake, do it,or  pass the club into the hands of someone who will. And do it quickly before it is too late.

[Worcester Owl]

8 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

 

I don't really see that as their job.  Some clubs will always be better run than others just like any other business.  Those that are better run will generally prosper and they deserve to  The last thing any regulator should do is to tell any business how to run itself day to day

There are “shades” of telling. The FCA for example may not attempt to micromanage financial service businesses, but its principles clearly set out how well-run businesses should manage their operations and treat their customers (fans, in football). There is no reason at all why the EFL cannot take a similar approach and @basilrobbieis quite correct on this. 
 

The EFL themselves recognise this with the very concept of a fit and proper ownership test, lamentable though their measurement and enforcement of this has been.

[the_mighty_bosh]

16 hours ago, basilrobbie said:

 

 

I agreed with the bit at the end about who the four sides in most danger are. Your next five games are tough and if you were offered five points from them now, would you not take it?  For comparison :

 

Carlisle play Barrow (h), Exeter (a), Harrogate (h), Walsall (h), Mansfield (a)

 

Scunny play Salford (h), Mansfield (a), Leyton Orient (h), Bradford (h), Stevenage (a)

 

Stevenage face Mansfield (h), Colchester (h), Rochdale (a), Tranmere (a), Scunthorpe (h)

 

I suppose Mansfield could pull clear from the bottom or get sucked backed into trouble, on that basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting that Mansfield are playing the 3 other teams around us in the next five games.  Granted they were rubbish against us but if they are getting key players back from injury then they could improve and pull away from the basement.

 

The other teams all have more home games than us in the next 5, although with our home form that's probably a blessing.  That said in our next 6 games we play all of the current top 4, a Tranmere side who are probably underachieving with their squad and a Salford side who are definitely underachieving with their budget.  Things are looking bleak.

[Dave_Og]

9 hours ago, Worcester Owl said:

There are “shades” of telling. The FCA for example may not attempt to micromanage financial service businesses, but its principles clearly set out how well-run businesses should manage their operations and treat their customers (fans, in football). There is no reason at all why the EFL cannot take a similar approach and @basilrobbieis quite correct on this. 
 

The EFL themselves recognise this with the very concept of a fit and proper ownership test, lamentable though their measurement and enforcement of this has been.

 

Some good points although it's some time since the FCA have been held up as an example of good regulation!  They effectively admitted defeat for their previous incarnation of fit and proper checking with the introduction of the SMCR regime and although the now ex-CEO of Barclays may disagree there has been minimal demonstration of the effectiveness of the new regime in the four and a half years since it was introduced.  I don't dispute for a second that the EFL could do a lot better if there was the will for it to do so but I do believe strongly that people expect far too much of regulators.  The Directors and Owners Test is a great example.  The majority of people who get into football clubs and run them appallingly could not be identified by any test as being likely to do so.   That would depend of relying on behavioural science (and it being accurate) rather than tests of fact which is all that an up front check can really achieve.

 

 

[basilrobbie]

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Some good points although it's some time since the FCA have been held up as an example of good regulation!  They effectively admitted defeat for their previous incarnation of fit and proper checking with the introduction of the SMCR regime and although the now ex-CEO of Barclays may disagree there has been minimal demonstration of the effectiveness of the new regime in the four and a half years since it was introduced.  I don't dispute for a second that the EFL could do a lot better if there was the will for it to do so but I do believe strongly that people expect far too much of regulators.  The Directors and Owners Test is a great example.  The majority of people who get into football clubs and run them appallingly could not be identified by any test as being likely to do so.   That would depend of relying on behavioural science (and it being accurate) rather than tests of fact which is all that an up front check can really achieve.

 

 

 

I can't agree with you about the EFL Dave. You only have to look at Rochdale and this guy (Southall?) who was involved at Charlton ; if the EFL were doing their due diligence properly, and rigorously applying the O&DT, he would have been drummed out of football long ago.

 

At Blackpool we had a 160 odd page High Court Judgement which was published on 6 November 2017. It outlined a systematic evasion of the club's own governance arrangement (to exclude the minority shareholder), the removal of £11m in payments to Owen Oyston, the movement of several more millions into the Oyston Group of companies, the suborning of the club's auditor and aggressive pursuit of any fans who dared to object. In court, Oyston's solicitor pleaded with the Judge not to take any decision until the EFL had met to discuss the case - on 18 November 2017. To this day, we have not been told what the outcome of that meeting was, or whether it ever took place.

 

That isn't us having overly high expectations. It is the EFL being incompetent, indolent and - culturally - completely unwilling to engage with the problem or the poor bloody fans who are most affected. You can put a lot of that on Shaun Harvey - but not all of it. Four years on, they are now putting themselves around a lot more. But it is (in my view) because they have belatedly realised that they are under threat in terms of their relevance and suitability for their role. 

[Dave_Og]

5 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

 

I can't agree with you about the EFL Dave. You only have to look at Rochdale and this guy (Southall?) who was involved at Charlton ; if the EFL were doing their due diligence properly, and rigorously applying the O&DT, he would have been drummed out of football long ago.

 

At Blackpool we had a 160 odd page High Court Judgement which was published on 6 November 2017. It outlined a systematic evasion of the club's own governance arrangement (to exclude the minority shareholder), the removal of £11m in payments to Owen Oyston, the movement of several more millions into the Oyston Group of companies, the suborning of the club's auditor and aggressive pursuit of any fans who dared to object. In court, Oyston's solicitor pleaded with the Judge not to take any decision until the EFL had met to discuss the case - on 18 November 2017. To this day, we have not been told what the outcome of that meeting was, or whether it ever took place.

 

That isn't us having overly high expectations. It is the EFL being incompetent, indolent and - culturally - completely unwilling to engage with the problem or the poor bloody fans who are most affected. You can put a lot of that on Shaun Harvey - but not all of it. Four years on, they are now putting themselves around a lot more. But it is (in my view) because they have belatedly realised that they are under threat in terms of their relevance and suitability for their role. 

 

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not for a second suggesting that he EFL's processes are adequate.  I do however think there are some with unrealistic expectations that they should be in a position to step in when there is perceived incompetence.

[basilrobbie]

58 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not for a second suggesting that he EFL's processes are adequate.  I do however think there are some with unrealistic expectations that they should be in a position to step in when there is perceived incompetence.

 

I think we are in danger of being in almost complete agreement. What I would add is that our expectations MAY be unrealistic because the regulatory system is highly prescribed, very inflexible and based almost completely upon punishment rather than promoting improvement. That's without adding in that it was agreed with and by  the very owners it is supposed to control.

 

I feel the main problem at Oldham is that the owner and those around him are not pantomime villains, as far as anyone can see. What they are is very, very poor at the job of being the custodian of a football club. And as you say, the EFL's powers are not well equipped to deal with that. But they should be, because they have had enough time and case experience to get it right. 

[maximus1267]

58 minutes ago, basilrobbie said:

 

I think we are in danger of being in almost complete agreement. What I would add is that our expectations MAY be unrealistic because the regulatory system is highly prescribed, very inflexible and based almost completely upon punishment rather than promoting improvement. That's without adding in that it was agreed with and by  the very owners it is supposed to control.

 

I feel the main problem at Oldham is that the owner and those around him are not pantomime villains, as far as anyone can see. What they are is very, very poor at the job of being the custodian of a football club. And as you say, the EFL's powers are not well equipped to deal with that. But they should be, because they have had enough time and case experience to get it right. 

I have to agree with your post regarding AL.

There is no evidence he is a villain. He is however and sadly, as you say poor at his job. 

There is no evidence of asset stripping or using the club to further his other business as Mike Ashley's first intentions with Newcastle were.

He is purely out of his depth as a football owner, he is not super rich and he has very poor people around him, its never going to end well.

He is also so out of touch with what our type of club is and what we expect as fans.

There is obviously issues with the difference in culture, and how differently business is done and how people are treated, especially if you believe the comments of previous players and staff at the club.

 

Unless he is proved to be a villain then we will just come accross as a moaning fanbase unhappy with our demise as a club.

He his just a charleton in my eyes who is digging his heels in now until someone offers him a silly amount of money to go.

He doesn't believe anything is his fault and to some degree he is right, our previous owners have alot to answer for, but he is just adding more nails to the coffin with his lack of business nowse, knowledge of football, nepotism and unrealistic asking price.

 

 

 

[Dave_Og]

16 minutes ago, maximus1267 said:

 

There is no evidence of asset stripping or using the club to further his other business as Mike Ashley's first intentions with Newcastle were.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm quite certain that was the initial plan and I had no problem with it at all - as a plan.  Unfortunately he and Mo clearly had no idea of the type/quality of player needed at this level.  It's blindingly obvious now that Plan A failed and there is no Plan B.

[BP1960]

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

 

I'm quite certain that was the initial plan and I had no problem with it at all - as a plan.  Unfortunately he and Mo clearly had no idea of the type/quality of player needed at this level.  It's blindingly obvious now that Plan A failed and there is no Plan B.

 

He probably thought players like Queensy Menig (who has gone higher) would work, but found out to his cost 5th rate players were what he could really afford.

[latics22]

Who is doing the pitch at present? there were 4 of them at it, the lines didn’t look straight. The previous guys used to painstakingly put rope down to get the lines of the grass perfect. These guys mow like me on my lawn.

[Chaddyexile84]

17 minutes ago, latics22 said:

Who is doing the pitch at present? there were 4 of them at it, the lines didn’t look straight. The previous guys used to painstakingly put rope down to get the lines of the grass perfect. These guys mow like me on my lawn.

 

Well one of them who prods the penalty area at half time thought a kettle and boiling water was the answer to a frozen pitch a few years back so I wouldn't be hoping for too much 

[Bobledgersheart]

1 hour ago, latics22 said:

Who is doing the pitch at present? there were 4 of them at it, the lines didn’t look straight. The previous guys used to painstakingly put rope down to get the lines of the grass perfect. These guys mow like me on my lawn.

Noticed the pitch was cutting up a bit on Saturday but put it down to over watering, although the sprinklers were still on at half time.

[Chaddyexile84]

5 minutes ago, Bobledgersheart said:

Noticed the pitch was cutting up a bit on Saturday but put it down to over watering, although the sprinklers were still on at half time.

Yes - mind you it’s not like it’s rained all week 

[Bobledgersheart]

1 hour ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

Yes - mind you it’s not like it’s rained all week 

Seems most pitches are watered before and during matches regardless of prevailing weather conditions !

[Chaddyexile84]

3 minutes ago, Bobledgersheart said:

Seems most pitches are watered before and during matches regardless of prevailing weather conditions !

I know, still laughed at the sight of sprinklers as it pissed it down around them

[JoeP]

8 hours ago, basilrobbie said:

 

I feel the main problem at Oldham is that the owner and those around him are not pantomime villains, as far as anyone can see. What they are is very, very poor at the job of being the custodian of a football club. And as you say, the EFL's powers are not well equipped to deal with that. But they should be, because they have had enough time and case experience to get it right. 

 

You're being kind by suggesting they're not pantomime villains - they are not good people who came in with the right intentions.  They came in with a half-arsed plan to push their clients through the club, because they believed that their clients from the French 5th division were purely being overlooked by the majority of the top clubs and they could cash-in on them by selling them on.  Egotistical beyond belief.  Now their masterplan hasn't worked they don't seem to want to know..

 

The EFL should have deemed him unfit to run a club as soon as they heard he was a football agent, in my opinion...

[Worcester Owl]

8 hours ago, basilrobbie said:

 

I think we are in danger of being in almost complete agreement. What I would add is that our expectations MAY be unrealistic because the regulatory system is highly prescribed, very inflexible and based almost completely upon punishment rather than promoting improvement. That's without adding in that it was agreed with and by  the very owners it is supposed to control.

 

I feel the main problem at Oldham is that the owner and those around him are not pantomime villains, as far as anyone can see. What they are is very, very poor at the job of being the custodian of a football club. And as you say, the EFL's powers are not well equipped to deal with that. But they should be, because they have had enough time and case experience to get it right. 

Both you and @Dave_Ogmake good points. To the latter, my point in bringing up the FCA analogy was because I (like you ? - apologies if I’m wrong) have spent many years in the financial services industry. The FCA and its predecessor FSA, and in particular IMRO, had their faults but they did make it clear that anyone in that industry could expect severe repercussions for rule breaches, going against conduct of business rules etc.

 

As a qualified accountant I had an innate sense of right and wrong anyway, but that “moral compass” was certainly underlined by the compliance regime we operated in. In contrast, it feels to me that at Oldham and many other clubs at board and ownership level those basic principles of a professional attitude, knowing right from wrong, sustainable stewardship and treating fans fairly are so often lacking if not altogether absent. If we cannot hold the EFL and ultimately the FA to account for this, who do we target?