|
Post by Mark Sennett on Jul 23, 2013 14:06:11 GMT
OxVox will hold a Special General Meeting in the Landmark Room of The Quadrangle Conference Centre on Saturday 31st August prior to the home fixture against Rochdale. This is an important meeting for the Trust, as we want member input and views on three significant topics: the recent Right to Bid OxVox have secured on The Kassam Stadium, future arrangements for Committee/Club meetings, and the Trust's rules. The Trust's current rules state that to revise these rules, at least a third of the voting membership must be involved. We have been advised by Supporters Direct, our parent organisation, that our existing rules need revising for a number of reasons, and full details of the key changes and the reasons for them are contained in the meeting paperwork here: www.oxvox.org.uk/UserFiles/Image/GMpaperwork.pdfIn order to amend the Trust's rules, we need at least a third of our membership taking part in this meeting. To make this as easy as possible, we have set up an online proxy form for members who are unable to attend the meeting to either vote in advance, or appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf. If you are a member you can vote now by clicking here. www.surveymonkey.com/s/S9CPM59Only current adult members votes will be counted. However, we hope that as many members as can will attend the meeting itself to ensure that members have the opportunity to ask questions and fully debate the changes proposed here. We hope that we may have a representative from Supporters Direct present to cover any questions about this or the Right to Bid. Whether you attend the meeting, vote in advance, or appoint a proxy, we would urge all members to take part in this meeting which is vital for the future status of the Trust.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Jul 23, 2013 14:07:14 GMT
Should also say a big Thanks to East Stand Boy for bailing us out and giving us a reliable platform to host this forum on! Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by sarge on Jul 23, 2013 14:18:14 GMT
Without the details regarding the various questions regarding the supporters/12th man bar being circulated as yet,( and with NO Priory) for the first home game of the season I'll be 'trying out' a hostelry a bit further than Id like from the ground with a few mates, so theres no way Im going to make it to the Oxvox meeting pre match , (sorry guys....still itll make the meeting shorter I guess ;-) ). Ive filled in the survey & am happy to pass my proxy vote to Oxvox Chairman ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Jul 23, 2013 14:23:24 GMT
Thanks Sarge. As i've said on another thread we've worked hard on the 12th man bar and details are due to be announced very soon. Hopefully if you stop by one game you will enjoy the new bar. If not then do tell us as we take all feedback seriously.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Jul 23, 2013 14:53:00 GMT
Surveymonkeyed as I will be elsewhere on the date. Can`t see the bar thing working purely based on the god awful experiences on the couple of occasions I have used it & to be honest that would take a major restructuring to fix...and that won`t happen!
How about OxVox find out if the fans would chip in to buy the ground under a share issue?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Jul 23, 2013 16:54:18 GMT
That's something that's very much in our thoughts and we will discuss it at the meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Jul 29, 2013 11:29:58 GMT
I've now registered with this forum.
If anyone has questions about the proposed new rules or the Special General Meeting, let me know and I will do my best to answer them.
Cheers!
Matt (OxVox Secretary)
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 5, 2013 23:22:30 GMT
I just wanted to address and clarify once and for all some questions (specifically taken from Mr 5Co) and answers which are being raised over the forthcoming meeting. Simply, Supporters Direct have asked all Trusts to do thist and it's standard rules for all. This is the first time they've been updated in 10 years and we have been asked several times since the middle of 2012 to implement them as we are one of the few who haven't done so yet.
Q: Is the meeting hastily called?
A: Supporters Direct wanted us to do this at the AGM with about a month's notice, which we felt at that point was too little time. Members will have had about seven weeks to look at this. I don't think that is hasty and I think was the correct decision to enable members time to question the new rules.
Q: Why is such an important meeting been arrange prior to a league game which means that the time allocated for the meeting will be limited. There are a number of serious issues that need to be discussed and explained and therefore the time allowed should not be limited to a maximum of 90 mins.
A: We have always held Member meetings ahead of games to try and maximise the number of members able to attend. When meetings have been held away from games, turnout has been much lower. It's therefore a balancing act between making the meeting as accessible as possible, while accepting this does limit the time available. If a significant number of members want to propose we do this differently, then we'll have to look at this again. Currently this is the only comment we've received about this.
Q: It appears that there is a need to change the rules of the Trust to prevent or lessen the possibility of legal action. Is this due to the Community Asset application? And if so who would any action be taken against?
A: No. The rules would need to be passed by the Trust even if we didn't have the RTB. There are some legal issues Supporters Direct have flagged up for us (and all trusts with rules that have been in place for some time), but these do not relate to the RTB. An example would be changes in discrimination legislation since our original rules were drawn up in 2002. Supporters Direct have revised their model rules to take account of these kinds of things, are asking all trusts to implement these, and we have followed that model.
Q: The Trust rules also need to be changed to allow the trust (Chairman?) to raise money from loans. Why would the Trust need to borrow money? And who would be held responsible for underwriting these loans on behalf of the trust, the membership?
A: As explained above, the rules don't *need* to be changed to allow withdrawable shares. It is proposed that they should be. As was clearly explained in the paperwork, these aren't loans. To quote that paperwork (which is bascially the advice Supporters Direct give about this):
'At the moment OxVox offers ordinary shares to members. These shares are not withdrawable and do not carry any rights to interest or dividend. A growing trend for Community Benefit Societies looking to raise finance is to offer a different type of share alongside the ordinary share called a withdrawable share (often reported as a community share). The withdrawable share doesn’t infringe the one member one vote ethos that runs throughout OxVox, but can offer a solution to attract potential investors who want to support the aims of the organisation. The money is seen neither as a donation or a loan but can be requested back (usually after a defined period of time has elapsed) although only at the discretion of the OxVox Committee to ensure the Trust is not put at risk and its community objectives can be met. Whilst the option for Community Benefit Societies to offer different shares isn’t a new one it has become popular under the Community Shares banner and by having the facility ready to go in our rules it could be critical if there is a crisis or opportunity at the Club we support which requires finance to be raised: an issue which becomes more important with our Right to Bid on The Kassam Stadium.'
Given we need to go through the process of consultation to consider introducing the revised rules, the Committee suggest we establish this option at the same time.
Q: The proposals need a minimum of 30% of the members (who have voting rights) to cast their vote. Could you please tell us what that % represents as a number?
A: It's acutally a third of the voting membership, not 30%. A third of the voting membership is 120.
Cheers Simon
|
|
|
Post by voteno (banned) on Aug 7, 2013 18:30:34 GMT
Simon – all very enlightening and indeed text book answers to what you believe are the objections relating to the forthcoming meeting – that seems to directly relate to:
a) the RTB episode and b) an organization called Supporters Direct.
Looking at the current Rules of OxVox Supporters’ Society Ltd I note the following:-
OBJECTS 2. The Society's objects are, either itself or through a subsidiary company or society trading for the benefit of the community and acting under its control: i) to strengthen the bonds between the Club and the community which it serves as a good and welcome neighbour, and to represent the interests of the community in the running of the Club, thereby enhancing the Club’s reputation with both supporters and non-supporters alike. ii) to benefit present and future members of the community served by the Club by promoting encouraging and furthering the game of football as a recreational facility, sporting activity and focus for community involvement regardless of the sex or ethnic origin of those involved. iii) to enable the supporters to contribute to the success of the Club and to uphold and preserve the tradition and heritage of the Club. iv) to seek to be a unifying body and a medium of communication between all supporters of the Club. v) to build and develop a positive, proactive relationship with the owner(s), the board and the management of the Club and any other interested party, and promote constructive dialogue between the Club and its supporters.
5. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club………..
So the first question is:-
‘What mandate / authority did the committee have when applying for the RTB matter?’
The second question is:-
‘Being a member of OxVox why are the committee endlessly telling me what an organization I have no affiliation with called Supporters Direct recommend this, that or the other – regarding my supports trust?’
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Aug 7, 2013 18:47:56 GMT
Fair questions which warrant an answer
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 7, 2013 21:36:23 GMT
They are fair questions. Question 1 has been answered on the other thread you started. www.yellowsforum.co.uk/thread/14822/invitation-oxvox-committee-member. OxVox is the Oxford United Supporters Trust, set up by fans for fans, to provide an independent voice on matters affecting the club and its supporters. It is one of over 100 trusts set up under the umbrella of Supporters Direct. They are our parent body, by association you do have an affiliation with Supporters Direct. We are a member of Supporters Direct. I think their aims are probably understood and embraced by most football fans www.supporters-direct.org/homepage/aboutsupportersdirect/mission-statement The trust is registered as an Industrial and Provident Society with the Financial Services Authority (FSA). It has a written Constitution (set of rules) which can be viewed on the website. What is a Supporters Trust? A Supporters Trust is made up of members, who are fans, who can raise issues and suggestions concerning the club and vote to decide the Trust's policy. What does OxVox do? That is up to the members of the Trust. The trust works within its aims as listed elsewhere on this site. Turning the aims into policy and getting things done is the job of the OxVox Board (the committee which runs the trust) working with the membership and consulting them via members meetings and surveys and other mediums of communication.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 7, 2013 21:37:32 GMT
As a member you have every right to Vote No too. You also have every right to vote a show of no confidence in the committee.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Aug 8, 2013 7:19:02 GMT
As a member you have every right to Vote No too. You also have every right to vote a show of no confidence in the committee. However its easier for a member to voice their opinions on a forum than to get off their backside & do something.
|
|
|
Post by ox44xp on Aug 8, 2013 9:24:02 GMT
Now I'm not an OxVox member so a lot of this has washed over me, but reading between the lines and making unwarranted assumptions without reading every last word on the topic, I'm a bit confused.
It has been reported that OxVox have obtain a legal protection for the stadium by getting it registered as a community asset and securing a "Right to buy", so what are we "voting no" against". Does Mr voteno and his (seemingly small) band of followers want to reverse this legal protection and if they should succeed in getting a "no" vote through, what are they intending to replace this protection with?
I think he needs to explain himself a little more clearly for those of us that don't follow thiese things in minutae
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Aug 8, 2013 10:18:22 GMT
I'd like to know what happens if Kassam appeals against the listing.
Because he will knowing his previous.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:09:53 GMT
Seen little of the forums over the past 24 hours but at least I am pleased that people are debating this issue, rather than just clamming up.
I can only enter the debate if oxvox will allow me - not being one of their members......but if I try to sum up what I have read so far and reply - sometimes in Devil's advocate mode - I hope that this will draw some reasoned educated responses....void of sniping......and a chance for Mark and/Simon to reply in simple terms to their own members who doubt their leadership.
Mark and Simon know the reason I resigned - one of the main reasons were that I considered their decisions were being made unilaterally.
Q: I consider that you did not explain to your membership that you were going to apply for this Community Asset thing. My thoughts with regard to your answers so far is that a sleight of hand was in evidence. Discussions such as now were not possibe for somewhat mysteriously the Oxvox forum was closed. Were surveys sent out to members during the time that no oxvox forum was available?. Of course general claims that OV were trying to protect the Stadium, if not fully explained, will obvious meet with approval.
Q: You keep on about the percentages of your members voting in favour of you policies......what percentage of your members actually voted?
Q: Whats is the position of liability with regards to any action being taken against Oxvox.....am I right in thinking that if the new rules are not adopted, then only the committee are liable for damages - but if they are, then the whole membership to liable? Can you clarify please.
Q: Is there any truth in the rumour that if you win the day at your meeting, that your committee members are not allowed to voice their personal opinions in public on OV matters without the approval of your leadership? Q: We are led to believe from Simon that the adult membership is 360....yet shortly afterwards Mark says it is 500 and rising yet somewhere recently it has been documented that the oxvox membership has fallen by 11% in the past year - are you drawing the long bow here Mark for I know a great percentage of the membership are babies, children and minors ( remember at one of the fun days at the Kassam, children were virtually given memberships if they had a go on the bouncy castle etc). I am really puzzled by your comments here - maybe you're right and your vice president is wrong?.
Q: I think Matt in a post somewhere has indicated that several trusts are possibly facing a legal challenge on the activity you have taken - can you clarify please?
Q: I note that your advice on this issue was given pro bono........how do you think this would stack up against some really heavies legal wise should it come to this (god forbid)
Q: Why do you feel that with a membership of just 360 adults (many life members from the beginning may well have passed on or gone away) oxvox has the right - even forgetting their own membership - to unilaterally decide to know what is best for the wider fan base without allowing them to speak on said actions prior to it being implicated?
Q: You have now established the RTB; if a would-be purchaser should come along, are you in funds to buy or match the bid? for if you are not, I suggest that you have wasted everyones time and made oxvox look a little foolish? Care to comment.
Mark and Simon.....can I invite you please to just answer these questions in the simplest of terms and then I suggest it is up to your membership and others to accept what you say and if they don't, what more can you do?.
To prolong this subject much longer, is fruitless I feel. Either people will be with you or not.......thats the way of life I'm afraid.
PLEASE let us move on after you have said your piece. for all this is getting quite ridiculous imho.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:16:01 GMT
To prolong this subject much longer, is fruitless I feel. Either people will be with you or not.......thats the way of life I'm afraid. PLEASE let us move on after you have said your piece. Well quite. But shouldn't that plea be taken to your fellow posters on the Yellow Voice forum? It seems to me that the entire raison d'être for that forum is to bitch and moan about OxVox. Very little OUFC discussion, whatever its stated aims.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:22:52 GMT
To prolong this subject much longer, is fruitless I feel. Either people will be with you or not.......thats the way of life I'm afraid. PLEASE let us move on after you have said your piece. Well quite. But shouldn't that plea be taken to your fellow posters on the Yellow Voice forum? It seems to me that the entire raison d'être for that forum is to bitch and moan about OxVox. Very little OUFC discussion, whatever its stated aims. I am merely a member of that forum and I am not their keepers. Surely this whole episode should now be ended soonest. Let Mark and Simon have the last word and then move on. Thats what I think anyway. Might see you in the new bar on Saturday - care to buy this poor OAP a coffee?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:25:34 GMT
Well quite. But shouldn't that plea be taken to your fellow posters on the Yellow Voice forum? It seems to me that the entire raison d'être for that forum is to bitch and moan about OxVox. Very little OUFC discussion, whatever its stated aims. I am merely a member of that forum and I am not their keepers. Surely this whole episode should now be ended soonest. Let Mark and Simon have the last word and then move on. I realise that Bob, but you are advising people on this forum what to do (ie move on). For consistency's sake, why not advise those on YV to do the same?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:30:52 GMT
OK YH.......you owe me a coffee sometime!
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 8, 2013 13:43:08 GMT
Bob quite frankly that's some of the most ludicrous questions i've ever read. Some don't even deserve answers especially the suggestion i'm gagging committee members. I have a single vote on a committee of ten so please stop incinuating i control the committee. We vote on all issues between the 10 of us.
To answer your questions so they are answered once and for all:
1) No we didn't inform membership about our application after we were advised not to prejudice the decision on the council as this could have been detrimental in an appeal process. But we did ask at our AGM if members would be happy for us to do anything we could to protect the stadium from being sold to a third party. Everyone in the room was in favour
2)Just over a third of adult members voted (which is is a very high response rate for a survey)
3) There is ZERO liability to OxVox on the right to bid application we like any other community group applied under legislation to list the asset. Any costs would be placed upon Oxford Ciry Council and the government have a central pot to cover those costs. No OxVox members or the Trust is liable for anything to do with the RTB before or after the rule changes (should they be approved).
4)I'm actually offended you'd suggest i'm gagging the committee and if i did they're all strong willed chaps and would quit. You are attacking my character with an unfounded accusation and i'd appreciate as you know me you'd think before you ask this in future. But for the reccord no i've never silenced the committee if or when i've been on the losing side of a vote.
5) Adult membership is around 360 and that's roughly what its been for a long time. Our overall membership is just ove 500. During this committees tenure it at one point hit 600 - the highest ever figure. We would of course love more people to renew and we're working hard on it. We've had a lot of renwals recently.
6) No they are not to my knowledge. Man Utd are looking at legal action and that would be against their council.
7) No i do not but we are an elected committee and we do have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of membership. It is not possible to ballot every member on every decision. We are accountable for our actions and anyone that doesn't like our direction can voice this and stand against us at AGMs. But our previous membership survey as i mentioned had a 91% approival rating.
8) Diagree Bob. If someone eg London Welsh came along to buy the stadium they could not do so on the quiet now we and through us the fans would now be informed. It would give us 6 months to raise the cash, which is long enough. Having said that we continu to work with the football club as we speak about funding options and this is progressing nicely and when there is something concrete to say we will inform our members.
I've answered these questions once and for all as i have many of them before. I hope this dispells some of the absolutely ridiculous accusations being thrown our way on a certain forum. I once again also state i'm interested in the views of all oxvox members and unlike one poster on that forum wants i won't value their opinion more due to their wealth. One member one vote we are all equal. I'm no more important to the Trust than any other member and i serve at their pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 15:04:55 GMT
Thank you for taking the time to answer questions.
Question four. Mark you really must stop this persecution complex - please read the whole comment.......it was a question re a rumour NOT an accusation. This seems to be one of your unfortunate traits.
I am pleased that you have answered the questions and it is for others - if they are interested - to accept them or otherwise.
I wish you well.
Good luck and hopefully we can all move on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 15:06:52 GMT
Mark what kind of time frame did the club give on receiving the final revenue splits on the 12th man bar?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 8, 2013 15:17:17 GMT
Hi Junior - This is an issue we chased all summer and we left every possible minute to see if this could be done before an annoucement. A revenue share will be hugely beneficial for all parties. As you csn see today as it hasn't been signed off just yet we couldn't endorse the new bar without it despite the huge efforts that have gone in to make it a great place for fans to drink.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 16:41:01 GMT
And the timeframe given by the club? Was it Ian Lenagan you are / were dealing with?
|
|
|
Post by voteno (banned) on Aug 8, 2013 19:35:30 GMT
Mark can you please explain why ‘Bob quite frankly that's some of the most ludicrous questions i've ever read’?
If you really are ‘I once again also state i'm interested in the views of all Oxvox members……’ why are you so defensive and decline sensible dialogue?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 19:40:41 GMT
Mark can you please explain why ‘Bob quite frankly that's some of the most ludicrous questions i've ever read’? If you really are ‘I once again also state i'm interested in the views of all Oxvox members……’ why are you so defensive and decline sensible dialogue? "Decline sensible dialogue". You're a key member of a forum designed to do just that, in favour of unintelligent vitriol. Why don't the three of you just play together and not bother the rest of us?
|
|
|
Post by voteno (banned) on Aug 8, 2013 19:57:46 GMT
YellowHoods - thank you for your thoughts on 'unintelligent vitriol'.
Are my thoughts 'unintelligent vitriol' because I dare to question a decision made on my behalf, or because I want debate of the facts?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 20:02:32 GMT
YellowHoods - thank you for your thoughts on 'unintelligent vitriol'. Are my thoughts 'unintelligent vitriol' because I dare to question a decision made on my behalf, or because I want debate of the facts? The facts have been debated. Your questions have been answered. You are not now questioning a decision made on your behalf - that would be fine - you are questioning the right of the committee to make decisions, despite everyone knowing they have an enduring mandate to do so. Vitriol is commonplace on the YV forum, from some members it is certainly unintelligent. I stand by my description.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 8, 2013 20:38:46 GMT
Do you even understand what you are voting against, voteno?
|
|