|
Post by voteno (banned) on Aug 9, 2013 7:04:57 GMT
Slappy - more to the point do you understand what you are being encouraged to voting for?
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Aug 9, 2013 8:03:37 GMT
Irrespective of personal conflicts (of which it seems there are plenty!) Oxvox is a democracy. If most say "Yes" and give the committee a mandate to act then thats that. The "No" camp can raise resolutions and/or motions of no confidence and see what happens.
Apply your energy to stand legitametly against the current way it works or not..... Put up or shut up really.
PS: Not a committee member but a very long standing member thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oxymoron on Aug 9, 2013 15:15:04 GMT
Slappy - more to the point do you understand what you are being encouraged to voting for? Well that's (at least) two people who have asked you to explain what we are voting against; I'll make it three cos I don't think I understand what you're on about either. So without turning the question back on me, what am I voting against and what are the alternatives ? You can take it as read that if I don't know what I'm voting "no" for, then I don't know what I'm voting "yes" for either if you like.......
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 9, 2013 15:24:53 GMT
Slappy - more to the point do you understand what you are being encouraged to voting for? YES - "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." So I am being asked whether I want Oxvox's rules revised in line with what is current best practice for Football Supporters' Organisations. I wasn't asked to vote on anything else.
|
|
|
Post by chuckbert on Aug 9, 2013 15:48:39 GMT
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. You have got to be kidding, Bob. That was the most leading question I have ever seen, and the response was perfectly acceptable. After seeing that, with respect I would question whether it is one of your unfortunate traits. The chair of a trust puts themselves up for legitimate criticism on many grounds, but the innuendo and "when did you stop beating your wife"-style questions I have seen here in the last few days is wholly unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 15:59:52 GMT
Blimey.....my question seems to have been misunderstood.
It was a strait forward question to give Mark and opportunity to dispel a rumour.
I fully expected an answer along the lines: "of course not Bob - this is a stupid rumour and has no foundation whatsoever"
Are you still in Aussie Chuckbert?
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 9, 2013 16:02:43 GMT
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? Hi Bob - there seems to have been some conufsion about this and whether it is to do with the RTB. It isn't. As I wrote in the paperwork that went out to members about the proposed new rules, one of the things Supporters Direct have been keen to advise Trusts on is any potential legal problems with their rules. When OxVox's rules were drawn up back in 2002, they were based on the model Supporters Direct offered at the time. The law has changed since then, and some of those model rules are now potentially problematic. The example I was given was one Trust that was successfully challenged on the grounds of discrimination as they had a rule stating that you may not be a member of their committee if you are suffering from a mental disorder (which our rules also contain - rule 58e. No jokes about how successfully we've applied that rule please everyone...). We're now over a decade on, and Supporters Direct have undertaken a big exercise to revise the model rules they provide to take account of these kinds of potential issues, so we consider one of the key reasons to adopt these new rules is to ensure OxVox is not open to this kind of risk. That's the legal challenge I mentioned. I hope that clears things up.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 16:12:51 GMT
Thanks Matt. Its great when a person replies with calm authority and reasoned argument if that is the word.
A posts void of hysterics which I appreciate......and a lesson for us all.
|
|
|
Post by chuckbert on Aug 9, 2013 16:53:33 GMT
Blimey.....my question seems to have been misunderstood. It was a strait forward question to give Mark and opportunity to dispel a rumour. I fully expected an answer along the lines: "of course not Bob - this is a stupid rumour and has no foundation whatsoever" Are you still in Aussie Chuckbert? Hi Bob, Yes still in Perth and enjoying it - winter's warmer than a Dundee summer. Virign's taken over all of the internal WA traffic now, and Emirates operate all QF international traffic out of PER now. Seriously, though, go back and look at your question. How on earth do you expect anyone to respond to a "are the rumours true that you ..."-type question, other than against the original accusation? It is not fair to expect a "i refute the rumours" response, unless you want oxvox to splash out on legal and PR expenses. You're not the BBC and Mark's not CallMeDave. Especially when it is one of ten (or so) questions to be responded to, and the respondent is fielding a whole bunch of antagonistic questions at the same tIme. Give your informed position I would much rather hearing substantial concerns you have about oxvox and its governance, but not objections about the semantics of a rebuttal of rumours!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 19:16:40 GMT
Hi Chuckbert.....you must have a good tan by now! I haven't been to Oz for some considerable time now and I bet I'd see a difference......I'm well and truly put out to grass now but play Bowls regularly with my fellow wrinklies. One of my grand-daughters is with Virgin - but on the holiday side of things now. With regard to 'that' question, I think you and YH and a few others on here would analyze fart for a h'apenny!!! - Happy days......Bob.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 30, 2013 12:46:23 GMT
Bump!
The SGM is tomorrow, so I'd like to remind all OxVox members about this, and encourage you to attend. Even if you have already voted or appointed a proxy to vote on your behalf, please do come along and take part in the discussion about the Right to Bid: we will give a brief outline of what happened at the appeal hearing yesterday.
If you haven't voted or appointed a proxy to vote on your behalf, then you should definitely come along!
We want to start promptly at 1.30 pm, so if at all possible, we would ask attendees to get there in advance of this time.
A reminder of the details of the meeting:
1.30pm, the Landmark Room of The Quadrangle Conference Centre on Saturday 31st August, prior to the game against Rochdale. It is members only, but you can join or renew on the door. Junior members are also welcome, but are not entitled to vote.
Thanks everyone!
Matt
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 31, 2013 18:28:14 GMT
Thank you to all the membes who voted in advance or in person. Was great to see 36% of adult members voting and of this 97% voted to approve the rule change. So this will now be implemented.
Was a constructive meeting and good to hear a range of views. It was so good to hear some really positive feedback from members in attendance. Thanks to all who took part.
|
|
|
Post by cecantena on Sept 1, 2013 11:35:05 GMT
Pleased to hear this positive news, Mark.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 15:08:50 GMT
I wasn't at the SGM (or match) yesterday, but I understand that after a certain member had raised a couple of points he was asked by a member if he'd like to apologise to Mark Sennett for comparing him to Mugabe recently. Showing no class, he refused, much to the disgust of many present, then kept quiet for the rest of the meeting.
Anyone able to give a perspective on this?
|
|
|
Post by eighteen93 on Sept 1, 2013 16:02:47 GMT
What was even more unpleasant was Crellin's continued attack post match on Sennett In the 12th Man Bar. Again Crellin refused to apologize for his crass comment as the two of them eyeballed each other for what seemed an eternity.
Very sad although some said it was the most exciting thing that happened on Saturday afternoon. Crellin launched more attacks than the Oxford forward line had mustered.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 16:14:31 GMT
What was even more unpleasant was Crellin's continued attack post match on Sennett In the 12th Man Bar. Again Crellin refused to apologize for his crass comment as the two of them eyeballed each other for what seemed an eternity. Very sad although some said it was the most exciting thing that happened on Saturday afternoon. Crellin launched more attacks than the Oxford forward line had mustered. Yes, I heard that he made a general fool of himself, saying at the SGM that OxVox should realise they are now making 'adult decisions' and members may not understand what they are agreeing to. Seemed to imply that all members who voted in favour are uneducated morons. At least no-one outside his group of sycophants will take him seriously from now on.
|
|
|
Post by pat1 on Sept 1, 2013 16:46:44 GMT
I went to the meeting and he did indeed use the phrase "grown-ups" and "big boys" several times to patronise the committee and members who obviously werent clever enough to understand for themselves. He seemed very pleased with himself over his classless refusal to apologise to Mark Sennett and when not on his feet grandstanding he was chatting to one of his mates in the back row about when they should follow through with their drastic threat to resign and join fellow bitter old men in exile. Oh well at least he registered his 3 protest votes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 16:52:43 GMT
I went to the meeting and he did indeed use the phrase "grown-ups" and "big boys" several times to patronise the committee and members who obviously werent clever enough to understand for themselves. He seemed very pleased with himself over his classless refusal to apologise to Mark Sennett and when not on his feet grandstanding he was chatting to one of his mates in the back row about when they should follow through with their drastic threat to resign and join fellow bitter old men in exile. Oh well at least he registered his 3 protest votes. Is that one vote for each of his multis on YV?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 22:00:53 GMT
And here's beloved Ken's view;
See Mr5 is getting stick from a few of the intellectually challenged on the other place. Ignore them Mr5. Anyone who disagrees or has the guts to say what he thinks at an OxVox meeting often gets personal abuse. Fact is they don't have the ba..ls to stand up and give an independent view themselves. That's cos they don't have one. A brain cell that is. So ignore the few morons who do this. Rise above them Mr5, which is pretty easy considering the level they're at. Good for you for saying your piece. Respect.
You are right and they are wrong, you are also a damn sight more intelligent than little blue eyes and his mates.
Yeah, how's that gents? You looking at me? And I don't need ten pints to say it like you lot. So easy to throw abuse from behind your computers or when you got your gang with you ennit? So leave Mr5 alone, pretty please. Ken
Well, Ken should know about showing himself up at OxVox meetings. Who do you think "little blue eyes" is?
"Intellectually challenged", "brain cell", "morons". Give it a rest Ken. And what's the last paragraph about? Bizarre.
PS In case you don't know, Mr5Co was voteno who started this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Sept 2, 2013 12:22:40 GMT
Ken is the last person who should judge people for personal abuse that is given out. He was Mr Idle Threat in this place and started that way on YV. Infact, he seems to judge people an awful lot when he is uncomfortable when it is reciprocated.
|
|
|
Post by lodeyellow on Sept 2, 2013 15:18:37 GMT
I have to say that I thought the OxVox meeting on Saturday was mildly amusing. If I'd publicly have been asked to do something in the sort of aggressive manner that the guy near the front (don't know who he is, and don't want to) employed when he demanded that Jon Crellin apologise to Mark for the Mugabe reference, then I'd jolly well refuse as well.
I was one of the few members who voted no to all the committee's proposals (in advance, because I thought I mightn't be able to attend the meeting). My reason for doing so wasn't because I particularly objected to the proposals (as I regard them largely as an irrelevance, just like the right to bid), but because I strongly objected to the recent sabotaging of the OxVox forum and the monstering by members of the committee and their acolytes on Yellows Forum and elsewhere of people I happen to like and respect.
|
|