|
Post by pottersrightboot on Aug 22, 2013 17:31:53 GMT
Still don't really understand the thinking of the people moaning about not being consulted about the RTB. Is it in OxVox's rules that the membership should be polled before the committee make EVERY decision? Were the committee not elected to make decisions on behalf of the membership? And if the membership consider that too many decisions are "wrong", can they not oust the committee at the next election? As for the whole RTB saga, would not most OUFC fans consider it a positive thing? We all know there are political and personal undercurrents at play here. Shop steward PRB is just stoking the fires. Crap. Don't try and create a divide that doesn't exist. know some of the lads on the committee quite well. I've got no wish to fall out with them, I've already said that RTB is a good thing. Kassam's decision this week means though that the committee and its membership have to work together closely on this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 17:43:00 GMT
Still don't really understand the thinking of the people moaning about not being consulted about the RTB. Is it in OxVox's rules that the membership should be polled before the committee make EVERY decision? Were the committee not elected to make decisions on behalf of the membership? And if the membership consider that too many decisions are "wrong", can they not oust the committee at the next election? As for the whole RTB saga, would not most OUFC fans consider it a positive thing? We all know there are political and personal undercurrents at play here. Shop steward PRB is just stoking the fires. Crap. Don't try and create a divide that doesn't exist. know some of the lads on the committee quite well. I've got no wish to fall out with them, I've already said that RTB is a good thing. Kassam's decision this week means though that the committee and its membership have to work together closely on this. Yep. When you say things like " Damn right you have no problem, you are answerable to us!" to Scoob the love just shines through. Of course, it might just be your bombastic, combative style which I guess I'm in no position to criticise.
|
|
|
Post by heel on Aug 22, 2013 18:04:46 GMT
Don't let the multis and muppets on that other forum get you guys down. The right to buy is a great thing it sticks two fingers up to Firoz and means he can't just sell it from under our noses (bet he would if he could).
Why the hell do people ignore answers posted on here OxVox has made it clear there are no costs unless they want legal reps at a second appeal stage and they don't spud like they'd even entertain that without 3rd party funding. The accusations that debt will go on to members is absurd a couple of idiots in that other forum are spinning what's said and creating a web of lies. Well done on attacking fans who have done something positive that has clearly been supported by the majority of fans.
And so much for the accusations about this damaging relations with united and Kassam as I see on another thread HeadingtonTrev has confirmed a revenue split has now been agreed with Kassam and due to be signed. He'd obviously do this if he's so incensed with the fans.
As I'm a member (despite being an exile) I'm fully behind this and the other great work oxox have done for Langan. Keep up the great work ladies as gents.
|
|
|
Post by Snake (RIP) on Aug 22, 2013 21:15:54 GMT
I concur with Tim when he states “Don't try and create a divide that doesn't exist”. The fact that someone is selectively cutting and pasting my words onto another forum is odd and divisive, though they are perfectly entitled to do so as what I write on here is public, but as I’ve stated earlier I’m a bit out of touch these days with OUFC as I watch most of my football games abroad. However, I still live in West Oxfordshire and my local MP claims to be an Aston Villa supporter. Really? Does he give a jot about football, let alone local football? The last time I talked to David Cameron was when Firoka opened their new hotel (and I have to admit the food was fab). - eatoutmagazine.co.uk/david-cameron-officially-opens-crowne-plaza-heythrop-park-oxfordAndrew Smith turns up now and again to watch Oxford United, but when he does there is never an accompanying photo shoot for the Oxford Mail to politically run with. And for the record I'm not an OxVox member, though my cat is.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 23, 2013 8:05:54 GMT
As I see it, the RTB has the benefit of stopping the Stadium from being sold from under our feet without us having any notice, so that’s a good thing. It would then allow a bid to be put in if the money can be raised from sources – that may be pie in the sky, but so what. If the money can’t be raised then we are no worse off than without the RTB being in place.
The dis-advantages that seem to be being raised seem to be:
That OxVox, or its members, may be having to pay for any court costs – that has been answered that we wouldn’t.
That we may p*ss Kassam off – so what, sucking up to the guy hasn’t actually done much for the club has it. And the reality is that it doesn’t seem to be affecting the relationship (ref 12th man bar co operation). He’s also a hard headed businessman, as is often pointed out, so he would accept the highest amount of money offered for the stadium regardless of who offered it.
Various people (seemingly ex OxVox committee members and some with personal grudges against current committee members) are a bit peeved that the membership weren’t directly consulted about the RTB being applied for. – That has been answered as it was thought that giving Kassam prior notice about it (as that would have done) may have jeopardised the outcome. Anyway, the majority seem to be pleased with the RTB outcome and were happy enough for the committee to act for them in the way that they did.
The appeal process now taking place – It was obvious to anyone that this would happen. So what. If Kassam eventually wins then we are back to the point we were before, so no change. If OxVox win then we have the benefit as pointed out in the original paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by Snake (RIP) on Aug 23, 2013 19:25:45 GMT
“That we may p*ss Kassam off – so what, sucking up to the guy hasn’t actually done much for the club has it?” That quote reminds me of this Monty Python scene - www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso So go on then Long John Silver, what have WPL ever done for Us so far? I’m just trying to get some balance here as imho we either need a new owner that will bond back together the club, stadium and its surroundings, or more than just a cursory nod of approval from Oxford City Council. Significantly, when the Land Deal was drawn up it consisted of two documents, of which only one was released under the Freedom of Information Act after a long running legal battle prompted by Chris Koenig of the Oxford Times. As far as I’m aware the second document, which outlined a community partnership and was signed by all parties has yet to see the light of day, and to my knowledge is still legally enforceable. Maybe OxVox ought to ask Cllrs Bob Price and John Tanner for a copy of it, or at least have a discreet word in their political ears about its existance. If they need reminding then the missing document is dated 15th October 2001 and is signed by Oxford City Council’s legal service manager, Firoz Kassam and Ashwini Tawakley. It certainly makes good reading in terms of helping to bring the club and the community together...
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 23, 2013 20:41:00 GMT
Sorry I haven't read all this thread did see the report on teletext been away. Not sure about all behind the scenes at pompey I know they were in administration but the supporters trust didn't they get a court order for Chaneri or whatever his name was, to sell the club. Has Oxvox ever thought about this possibility, just wandering that's all
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 23, 2013 21:34:13 GMT
Still don't really understand the thinking of the people moaning about not being consulted about the RTB. Is it in OxVox's rules that the membership should be polled before the committee make EVERY decision? Were the committee not elected to make decisions on behalf of the membership? And if the membership consider that too many decisions are "wrong", can they not oust the committee at the next election? As for the whole RTB saga, would not most OUFC fans consider it a positive thing? We all know there are political and personal undercurrents at play here. Shop steward PRB is just stoking the fires. Not every decision YH, but certainly yes to big decisions, of which RTB is one. The committee can't be ousted that easily. Only a minority of the committee are up for re-election each year, and with low participation rates in polls, and lack of alternatives prepared to put the slog in, committee variation by membership is in reality not available. As for the RTB, it provides only a very limited restriction on what Kassam can do, and IMHO provides little benefit for the aggravation that Kassam will feel at having to free up a valuable asset, but it is better than nothing and overall should be supported. My main beef was OxVox holding a big deal press conference to blow their own trumpet about it, even though benefits are marginal and membership had not been consulted. As I've said on other threads, the OxVox committee are in situ to serve OxVox members first and foremost, and then the wider support at large, and not to serve their own ideaology. That in itself is the biggest drawback of a trust, whilst also being the biggest safeguard.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 23, 2013 23:12:27 GMT
Not every decision YH, but certainly yes to big decisions, of which RTB is one. The committee can't be ousted that easily. Only a minority of the committee are up for re-election each year, and with low participation rates in polls, and lack of alternatives prepared to put the slog in, committee variation by membership is in reality not available. As for the RTB, it provides only a very limited restriction on what Kassam can do, and IMHO provides little benefit for the aggravation that Kassam will feel at having to free up a valuable asset, but it is better than nothing and overall should be supported. My main beef was OxVox holding a big deal press conference to blow their own trumpet about it, even though benefits are marginal and membership had not been consulted. As I've said on other threads, the OxVox committee are in situ to serve OxVox members first and foremost, and then the wider support at large, and not to serve their own ideaology. That in itself is the biggest drawback of a trust, whilst also being the biggest safeguard. actually, only decisions related to amendment of the governing rules of the trust. the committee stand for election and are mandated representatives of the trust. however, all committee members i've ever worked with have felt that certain things need to be returned to the membership. but it's often those kind of decisions - the 'biggest' decisions - that are hardest to do that with. take the decision of the oxvox committee of the time to support WPL's takeover of the club. undeniably a big decision, but also one that was no doubt bound up in all sorts of issues of confidentiality and trust. what was the consultation with the membership at the time? i don't see how there feasibly could have been, but i'm happy that the commmittee made the best decision - that they could at the time. i think the RTB is in the same category. we've said we'll return this retrospectively to the membership, and look for their feelings on how and whether this is taken forward. a third of the committee are up for re-election every year - a minority, but a significant one. furthermore, an SGM can be called at any time by the membership if they are seriously unhappy with a decision/the direction of the trust/any issue basically, and put this to the membership. i don't think the issue is one with the oxvox constitution - current or proposed, which remain in essence the same. options are there to change things. the issue is whether these options are exercised. democracy in oxvox is always there, but to be effective, to be properly animated, people need to be willing to step forward and be involved. otherwise you're right, the committee is effectively in situ - through no fault of those committee members, if they're the ones that are willing to put in the time and effort.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 24, 2013 1:04:48 GMT
Not every decision YH, but certainly yes to big decisions, of which RTB is one. The committee can't be ousted that easily. Only a minority of the committee are up for re-election each year, and with low participation rates in polls, and lack of alternatives prepared to put the slog in, committee variation by membership is in reality not available. As for the RTB, it provides only a very limited restriction on what Kassam can do, and IMHO provides little benefit for the aggravation that Kassam will feel at having to free up a valuable asset, but it is better than nothing and overall should be supported. My main beef was OxVox holding a big deal press conference to blow their own trumpet about it, even though benefits are marginal and membership had not been consulted. As I've said on other threads, the OxVox committee are in situ to serve OxVox members first and foremost, and then the wider support at large, and not to serve their own ideaology. That in itself is the biggest drawback of a trust, whilst also being the biggest safeguard. actually, only decisions related to amendment of the governing rules of the trust. the committee stand for election and are mandated representatives of the trust. however, all committee members i've ever worked with have felt that certain things need to be returned to the membership. but it's often those kind of decisions - the 'biggest' decisions - that are hardest to do that with. take the decision of the oxvox committee of the time to support WPL's takeover of the club. undeniably a big decision, but also one that was no doubt bound up in all sorts of issues of confidentiality and trust. what was the consultation with the membership at the time? i don't see how there feasibly could have been, but i'm happy that the commmittee made the best decision - that they could at the time. i think the RTB is in the same category. we've said we'll return this retrospectively to the membership, and look for their feelings on how and whether this is taken forward. a third of the committee are up for re-election every year - a minority, but a significant one. furthermore, an SGM can be called at any time by the membership if they are seriously unhappy with a decision/the direction of the trust/any issue basically, and put this to the membership. i don't think the issue is one with the oxvox constitution - current or proposed, which remain in essence the same. options are there to change things. the issue is whether these options are exercised. democracy in oxvox is always there, but to be effective, to be properly animated, people need to be willing to step forward and be involved. otherwise you're right, the committee is effectively in situ - through no fault of those committee members, if they're the ones that are willing to put in the time and effort. I quite agree that lack of rotation on the committee is in no way a fault of the committee members. I don't agree with your analysis of the mandates or constitution either in principle or in practice Matt. There is no infinitely extendable mandate for the committee to do what they like as you overtly imply. If committee members voted to pay themselves salaries or very large expenses on the grounds that they believed it benefitted the aims of the trust for example, that would be embezzlement and it would not be possible for committee members to claim any such mandate. The same principle applies to any significant decision. Mandates are given based on what the committee members say they will do at AGMs when they are elected and subsequently when the membership give their approval for other policies. Committee members can't simply say, right I've been elected, now I'll do what I want. SGMs will never happen as no member has access to the membership database to command support to organise such an event and so that is a complete red herring. Certainly I think it would be better for the whole committee to stand for re-election each year. It might not change the committee, but it would prevent someone dominating the trust by effectively being voted in for a minimum 3 year term without any forward strategy being offered to voting members. Anyway, those constitutional issues are getting away from the point, which is that for such a significant decision as the RTB, the membership should have been consulted first. If the committee want an organisation where they can do what they want, they are of course perfectly entitled to set up such an organisation, but that is not what the trust is for. It isn't for me to defend the committee who were in situ when WPL took over, as I wasn't on the committee then, but I would remind you that the club were in a terrible state, with fans invading the boardroom, and mass protests against Kassam, and I think both the membership and wider supporter base at the time would have voted for almost anyone to take over the club. Merry wasn't sufficiently investigated prior to the takeover and the deal was not properly reviewed by OxVox at the time, but then OxVox were (and are) a very small organisation and the controlling parties to the club's ownership found it easy to avoid sharing relevant information, in contrast to FOUL a couple of years earlier which had widespread support. Once again, I would say everyone did their personal best with what was available to them.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 24, 2013 7:25:45 GMT
I quite agree that lack of rotation on the committee is in no way a fault of the committee members. I don't agree with your analysis of the mandates or constitution either in principle or in practice Matt. There is no infinitely extendable mandate for the committee to do what they like as you overtly imply. If committee members voted to pay themselves salaries or very large expenses on the grounds that they believed it benefitted the aims of the trust for example, that would be embezzlement and it would not be possible for committee members to claim any such mandate. The same principle applies to any significant decision. Mandates are given based on what the committee members say they will do at AGMs when they are elected and subsequently when the membership give their approval for other policies. Committee members can't simply say, right I've been elected, now I'll do what I want. SGMs will never happen as no member has access to the membership database to command support to organise such an event and so that is a complete red herring. Certainly I think it would be better for the whole committee to stand for re-election each year. It might not change the committee, but it would prevent someone dominating the trust by effectively being voted in for a minimum 3 year term without any forward strategy being offered to voting members. Anyway, those constitutional issues are getting away from the point, which is that for such a significant decision as the RTB, the membership should have been consulted first. If the committee want an organisation where they can do what they want, they are of course perfectly entitled to set up such an organisation, but that is not what the trust is for. It isn't for me to defend the committee who were in situ when WPL took over, as I wasn't on the committee then, but I would remind you that the club were in a terrible state, with fans invading the boardroom, and mass protests against Kassam, and I think both the membership and wider supporter base at the time would have voted for almost anyone to take over the club. Merry wasn't sufficiently investigated prior to the takeover and the deal was not properly reviewed by OxVox at the time, but then OxVox were (and are) a very small organisation and the controlling parties to the club's ownership found it easy to avoid sharing relevant information, in contrast to FOUL a couple of years earlier which had widespread support. Once again, I would say everyone did their personal best with what was available to them. i was using that as an example, and just pointing out that those kind of decisions come with a host of complicating factors - as the RTB did. but what the committee did do in this instance is flag up for members at the AGM that the issue of the ground was an area we were actively working on. i do think the constitutional issues are important. committee members can't pay themselves a salary - the rules expressly forbid it. so if the committee attempted to pay themselves, that would involve changing the rules, and something you had to go back to the membership for. if someone wants to raise a matter for an SGM, the trust will take that seriously. in fact, as secretary, i have in the past offered access to the membership base, in that if a member supplies some text to present to the membership, we will circulate it. it's not a red herring. we haven't set up the kind of organisation that makes questioning the committee difficult - in fact calling for an SGM would require a lower number of members under the proposed new rules. but, to repeat myself, oxvox needs people to use these options if they really think we've got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 24, 2013 11:15:41 GMT
I quite agree that lack of rotation on the committee is in no way a fault of the committee members. I don't agree with your analysis of the mandates or constitution either in principle or in practice Matt. There is no infinitely extendable mandate for the committee to do what they like as you overtly imply. If committee members voted to pay themselves salaries or very large expenses on the grounds that they believed it benefitted the aims of the trust for example, that would be embezzlement and it would not be possible for committee members to claim any such mandate. The same principle applies to any significant decision. Mandates are given based on what the committee members say they will do at AGMs when they are elected and subsequently when the membership give their approval for other policies. Committee members can't simply say, right I've been elected, now I'll do what I want. SGMs will never happen as no member has access to the membership database to command support to organise such an event and so that is a complete red herring. Certainly I think it would be better for the whole committee to stand for re-election each year. It might not change the committee, but it would prevent someone dominating the trust by effectively being voted in for a minimum 3 year term without any forward strategy being offered to voting members. Anyway, those constitutional issues are getting away from the point, which is that for such a significant decision as the RTB, the membership should have been consulted first. If the committee want an organisation where they can do what they want, they are of course perfectly entitled to set up such an organisation, but that is not what the trust is for. It isn't for me to defend the committee who were in situ when WPL took over, as I wasn't on the committee then, but I would remind you that the club were in a terrible state, with fans invading the boardroom, and mass protests against Kassam, and I think both the membership and wider supporter base at the time would have voted for almost anyone to take over the club. Merry wasn't sufficiently investigated prior to the takeover and the deal was not properly reviewed by OxVox at the time, but then OxVox were (and are) a very small organisation and the controlling parties to the club's ownership found it easy to avoid sharing relevant information, in contrast to FOUL a couple of years earlier which had widespread support. Once again, I would say everyone did their personal best with what was available to them. i was using that as an example, and just pointing out that those kind of decisions come with a host of complicating factors - as the RTB did. but what the committee did do in this instance is flag up for members at the AGM that the issue of the ground was an area we were actively working on. i do think the constitutional issues are important. committee members can't pay themselves a salary - the rules expressly forbid it. so if the committee attempted to pay themselves, that would involve changing the rules, and something you had to go back to the membership for. if someone wants to raise a matter for an SGM, the trust will take that seriously. in fact, as secretary, i have in the past offered access to the membership base, in that if a member supplies some text to present to the membership, we will circulate it. it's not a red herring. we haven't set up the kind of organisation that makes questioning the committee difficult - in fact calling for an SGM would require a lower number of members under the proposed new rules. but, to repeat myself, oxvox needs people to use these options if they really think we've got it wrong. Just to be clear, there was no criticism of you or the committee implied or intended. Thanks for clarifying the SGM position. I don't think flagging the stadium as an area to work on is anything like sufficient communication with the members. FWIW I very much doubt that communication of the RTB to members in advance would have made a blind bit of difference to the RTB outcome, which OCC have got right. The committee could have put in the leg work and then just before applying, asked the membership for a mandate to proceed. That would have been too late for Kassam to have done anything else anyway. Does the committee now accept that the big cahunas press conference and trumpet blowing was a bit OTT?
|
|
|
Post by chappers on Aug 25, 2013 6:54:14 GMT
I have just read this thread cover to cover and really can't see what some people are banging on about
OXVOXs involvement- why does anyone have a problem with the work carried out by OXVOX, it d,oes no harm at all. All they have done is the best available under existing legislation. My personal view is that the community asset legislation , has little power or worth beyond bringing the plight of these community assets to the publics attention. However that is my personal view and the strength or lack of value of the legislation is no fault of OXVOX. As regards to the committee's mandate for their part in this. Their mandate was created when the committee was voted in, that is the mandate of every democratically elected committee, (should the government be calling a referendum every time it passes new laws) Membership involvement should only be sought in matters constitutionally affecting an organisation With regards to the appeals process Mark has made it perfectly clear that no trut funds will be used for this purpose without consultation with the membership, and also further clarified that this wasn't the intention anyway. Again it is not OXVOXs fault that there is a right to appeal, which Firoka are exercising . Someone mentioned the 2001 community partnership agreement, well I have no idea if anything contained in there has either been contravened or even has any legal basis with regards to the stadium, but that is a seperate issue and one which would I'm sure would require a specific fund ring mandate,if OXVOX were to pursue it. Why is it that some people want to point the finger at those trying to salvage a bad situation rather than at those that created it in the future, i.e. those that thought it would be a good idea tho buy the club, separate from its only tangible asset. The only reason I can see that some people might have grounds to complain is they think that this action may sour the clubs relationship with Mr K, well reality check for you, that relationship went sour many years ago and my personal opinion is that a supporters trust would be derelict in their untie s if thy hadn't done what OXVOX did
It seems to me that whenever someone tries to do some good whether it be the community asset listing or the 12th man bar,etc, there will always be someone out there looking for a way to have a dig and find fault. If you aren't happy with the way things are being run then get your band of merry men together and either bring a vote of no confidence or stand for election at the next AGM
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on Aug 25, 2013 9:17:07 GMT
You have to wonder why Kassam is appealing this, what's he planning on doing with it?
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 25, 2013 17:51:42 GMT
Does the committee now accept that the big cahunas press conference and trumpet blowing was a bit OTT? speaking personally, i'm not sure i've got the right perspective to answer that GY. it's probably for you and others to judge.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 26, 2013 13:08:06 GMT
Does the committee now accept that the big cahunas press conference and trumpet blowing was a bit OTT? speaking personally, i'm not sure i've got the right perspective to answer that GY. it's probably for you and others to judge. Surely the committee have discussed it! And what s your personal perpective?
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Aug 26, 2013 19:04:19 GMT
I concur with Tim when he states “Don't try and create a divide that doesn't exist”. The fact that someone is selectively cutting and pasting my words onto another forum is odd and divisive, though they are perfectly entitled to do so as what I write on here is public, but as I’ve stated earlier I’m a bit out of touch these days with OUFC as I watch most of my football games abroad. However, I still live in West Oxfordshire and my local MP claims to be an Aston Villa supporter. Really? Does he give a jot about football, let alone local football? The last time I talked to David Cameron was when Firoka opened their new hotel (and I have to admit the food was fab). - eatoutmagazine.co.uk/david-cameron-officially-opens-crowne-plaza-heythrop-park-oxfordAndrew Smith turns up now and again to watch Oxford United, but when he does there is never an accompanying photo shoot for the Oxford Mail to politically run with. And for the record I'm not an OxVox member, though my cat is. Agree Snake, someone selectively cutting and pasting your words onto another forum IS odd and divisive. What is also odd and divisive is that the 'another forum' is so secretive about who funds it, who owns it and who runs it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 21:11:18 GMT
I concur with Tim when he states “Don't try and create a divide that doesn't exist”. The fact that someone is selectively cutting and pasting my words onto another forum is odd and divisive, though they are perfectly entitled to do so as what I write on here is public, but as I’ve stated earlier I’m a bit out of touch these days with OUFC as I watch most of my football games abroad. However, I still live in West Oxfordshire and my local MP claims to be an Aston Villa supporter. Really? Does he give a jot about football, let alone local football? The last time I talked to David Cameron was when Firoka opened their new hotel (and I have to admit the food was fab). - eatoutmagazine.co.uk/david-cameron-officially-opens-crowne-plaza-heythrop-park-oxfordAndrew Smith turns up now and again to watch Oxford United, but when he does there is never an accompanying photo shoot for the Oxford Mail to politically run with. And for the record I'm not an OxVox member, though my cat is. Agree Snake, someone selectively cutting and pasting your words onto another forum IS odd and divisive. What is also odd and divisive is that the 'another forum' is so secretive about who funds it, who owns it and who runs it. What's also odd, is that - bar the odd "we're playing X on Saturday" effort - the only active threads on YV forum are anti-OxVox in general, and personally anti one committee member in particular. Yet we're supposed to regard it as an third independently-minded OUFC forum? My arse! They "ask questions", as is their right, but are singularly unwilling to say anything positive about OxVox and its achievements. And, considering most of them claim not to dirty their eyes looking at this forum, just wait for these remarks to appear on their pages.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 27, 2013 12:05:33 GMT
speaking personally, i'm not sure i've got the right perspective to answer that GY. it's probably for you and others to judge. Surely the committee have discussed it! And what s your personal perpective? yes it was discussed. we announced it this way as it was clear there would be local media interest in the issue, and supporters direct anticipated national interest in terms of its implications for other clubs. as the legislation was relatively recent, it was to be expected that there would be a number of questions about the decision, and so we needed a way of announcing the news that made it possible for those questions to be put and answered. the point i was making about perspective was that as the committee were closely involved in the process of drawing together the application and following its progress through the council procedures and had put a lot into this, i can see that that's a perspective that may affect how you judge the decision's importance. that's why i say i perhaps don't have the right perspective to judge.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 27, 2013 20:06:12 GMT
Surely the committee have discussed it! And what s your personal perpective? yes it was discussed. we announced it this way as it was clear there would be local media interest in the issue, and supporters direct anticipated national interest in terms of its implications for other clubs. as the legislation was relatively recent, it was to be expected that there would be a number of questions about the decision, and so we needed a way of announcing the news that made it possible for those questions to be put and answered. the point i was making about perspective was that as the committee were closely involved in the process of drawing together the application and following its progress through the council procedures and had put a lot into this, i can see that that's a perspective that may affect how you judge the decision's importance. that's why i say i perhaps don't have the right perspective to judge. I'm not asking you about importance of the decision. I'm asking you about how it was handled by OxVox and whether the committee accept that they attempted to garner too much credit and blew their own trumpet far too much, for what is undoubtedly a debatable benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 28, 2013 11:58:18 GMT
I'm not asking you about importance of the decision. I'm asking you about how it was handled by OxVox and whether the committee accept that they attempted to garner too much credit and blew their own trumpet far too much, for what is undoubtedly a debatable benefit. but to make a judgement about whether we 'blew our own trumpet' (i.e. made claims in excess) i have to have a view about the importance of the decision, or i can't have a view about whether this was in excess. so, no, i don't think that, but equally i can see why i might be seen as not being in the best position to judge.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 13:57:37 GMT
What I don't understand in all of the OxVox bashing is this:
If it is -
A) an insignificant organisation due to the smallish numbers and;
B) run by incompetents/despots/megalomaniacs
then why don't those who seem to be so convinced of the above seek to set up another group? Surely if they are all so much better than OxVox then OUFC would, in no time at all, be blessed with England's premier supporter's trust. I'm an OxVox member but I'm not stupid, or loyal to that group, so come on those who seek to give your fellow fans a better organisation, give us the choice.
I'm waiting to choose!
|
|
|
Post by Snake (RIP) on Aug 28, 2013 19:18:32 GMT
OV is a completely democratic organisation but the problem is that it’s rare for the votes of paid up member to count as there are nearly always shoo-in vacancies (with one exception a couple of years ago) to stand on the committee. That’s because it’s a bit of an effort to do the work while others just think it’s fine to criticise from the comfort of the internet. It’s very similar to any typical English Parish Council Election, where almost any sane person can get in and have a say on things. By means of example I enclose a link to the Blackbird Leys call to get people involved, and their remit includes Minchery Farm... www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9536710.print/
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 29, 2013 8:07:27 GMT
OV is a completely democratic organisation but the problem is that it’s rare for the votes of paid up member to count as there are nearly always shoo-in vacancies (with one exception a couple of years ago) to stand on the committee. That’s because it’s a bit of an effort to do the work while others just think it’s fine to criticise from the comfort of the internet. It’s very similar to any typical English Parish Council Election, where almost any sane person can get in and have a say on things. By means of example I enclose a link to the Blackbird Leys call to get people involved, and their remit includes Minchery Farm... www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9536710.print/But you would have thought that some of the posters on YV who are so vocal and critical of the current committee would actually get out from behind their keyboards and do something tangible... rather than spouting off endlessly.
|
|
|
Post by Maurice Earp on Aug 29, 2013 11:41:17 GMT
OV is a completely democratic organisation but the problem is that it’s rare for the votes of paid up member to count as there are nearly always shoo-in vacancies (with one exception a couple of years ago) to stand on the committee. That’s because it’s a bit of an effort to do the work while others just think it’s fine to criticise from the comfort of the internet. It’s very similar to any typical English Parish Council Election, where almost any sane person can get in and have a say on things. By means of example I enclose a link to the Blackbird Leys call to get people involved, and their remit includes Minchery Farm... www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9536710.print/But you would have thought that some of the posters on YV who are so vocal and critical of the current committee would actually get out from behind their keyboards and do something tangible... rather than spouting off endlessly. Thats a very good point LJS, but I can't see any of them putting themselves forward to stand for the committee.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 12:33:04 GMT
In other news, my local Parish Council is using the Community Asset legislation to protect the village pub. Commendable!
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 30, 2013 12:47:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 15:18:50 GMT
No, its over near Cheltenham.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 30, 2013 15:59:44 GMT
In other news, my local Parish Council is using the Community Asset legislation to protect the village pub. Commendable! I wonder if that would have worked for the Priory?
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Aug 31, 2013 6:43:22 GMT
It's the big Oxvox meeting today. Prediction: Committee 0, Members 0. Attendance 24. UE: Trevor Lambert turns up, committee wear armbands.
|
|