|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 14:33:15 GMT
Just popping this here in case it gets overlooked in the other thread... I was aware that OxVox had a 1030 meeting on Saturday with Darryl, but didn't know that this included Tiger - assuming this was when they met him too. As Cheltenham Yellows rightly points out, OxVox exists to represent the OUFC fan base (or more accurately, the section of the fan base who have bothered to join). And whilst, of course, there will be times when there is a need to maintain certain confidentialities, the fact that a meeting even took place surely can't fall into that category? After all, OxVox revealed that they had a meeting with Juan Sartori when, according to Darryl Eales no actual bid had been made. www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15178971.Supporters__trust_OxVox_confirm_meeting_potential_Oxford_United_investors_before_last_match/So what makes the current situation so different? I would respectfully ask OxVox to answer the following questions: 1) Have they had a meeting with Sumrith “Tiger” Thanakarnjansuth? 2) Was this meeting in relation to a proposed takeover bid for OUFC? 3) Are they aware if a formal bid has been made? 4) Are they aware of "Tiger"'s plans for the club? 5) What further detail are they able to provide to members on the above?
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Nov 17, 2017 16:03:42 GMT
New thread going over the same old stuff again! I'm sure when people can say, they will. Not sure why you can't understand why somethings can't be released (NDA, etc)
It's getting a bit tiresome. You've answered you own question in your post
'And whilst, of course, there will be times when there is a need to maintain certain confidentiality, the fact that a meeting even took place surely can't fall into that category?'
I'm pretty sure if there was a meeting, the lack of any updates has everything to do with NDA's and nothing to with your perceived conspiracy theories about OxVox
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 16:11:23 GMT
What a supporters trust would have to discuss with a potential new owner would not, or should not, be covered by an NDA. We are not talking about the substance of any deal between the current owner and prospective purchaser. We are talking about what the supporters trust is doing to ensure members interests are being represented and finding out what a purchaser’s plans are.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Nov 17, 2017 16:25:16 GMT
Do you understand how NDA’s work?
Some do specify non disclosure on specific details, but many also prohibit non disclosure of any contact or meeting.
When the time is correct and allowed under legal disclosure I’m sure all relevant details will come out.
Until then I’m happy to let OxVox do what is best and is required.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 16:26:48 GMT
Yep. Do you understand how Supporters trusts are supposed to work?
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Nov 17, 2017 16:41:24 GMT
Yep. Do you understand how Supporters trusts are supposed to work? Seriously, is that the best you can come up with? Any individual, trust, company are legally bound by NDA's. It's got nothing to do with how a trust works and everything to do with following legal compliance
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 16:59:10 GMT
You are spectacularly missing the point here. Any discussions between a supporters trust and a prospective new owner SHOULD NOT BE COVERED BY AN NDA. If the fact that a meeting has even taken place cannot be reported to members, what's the point of the meeting? That's a question for OxVox to answer.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Nov 17, 2017 17:07:30 GMT
You are spectacularly missing the point here. Any discussions between a supporters trust and a prospective new owner SHOULD NOT BE COVERED BY AN NDA. If the fact that a meeting has even taken place cannot be reported to members, what's the point of the meeting? That's a question for OxVox to answer. Maybe u should listen to ur leader
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 17:11:26 GMT
OxVox are a party to the negotiations over the stadium. I would understand and respect that confidentiality.
They are not a party to any takeover. And I'm not asking for "anything confidential that would wreck the negotiation".
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Nov 17, 2017 17:12:45 GMT
OxVox are a party to the negotiations over the stadium. I would understand and respect that confidentiality. They are not a party to any takeover. And I'm not asking for "anything confidential that would wreck the negotiation". So did u publish every meeting u and mark were involved in ? As I have never seen any report on the then committee did on WE ?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 17:15:16 GMT
OxVox are a party to the negotiations over the stadium. I would understand and respect that confidentiality. They are not a party to any takeover. And I'm not asking for "anything confidential that would wreck the negotiation". So did u publish every meeting u and mark were involved in ? As I have never seen any report on the then committee did on WE ? Every meeting I was involved in with OxVox was minuted and shared with members.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Nov 17, 2017 17:19:27 GMT
So did u publish every meeting u and mark were involved in ? As I have never seen any report on the then committee did on WE ? Every meeting I was involved in with OxVox was minuted and shared with members. The instant it happened ? And the work u did on WE, Ive never seen it published ?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 17:31:30 GMT
The instant it happened ? And the work u did on WE, Ive never seen it published ? I think you'd be hard pushed to find a meeting which a) wasn't announced in advance and b) had minutes produced within about a week. In the current instance, it's been nearly a week and no confirmation (or denial) of a meeting taking place. And I didn't do the work on WE.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Nov 17, 2017 17:36:56 GMT
The instant it happened ? And the work u did on WE, Ive never seen it published ? I think you'd be hard pushed to find a meeting which a) wasn't announced in advance and b) had minutes produced within about a week. In the current instance, it's been nearly a week and no confirmation (or denial) of a meeting taking place. And I didn't do the work on WE. With talks at a critical stage as Charles has said previously I have no issue with Oxvox withholding info either because of an nda, or out of common decency. So long as it’s all made public when possible. Which I would guess would be at the point a takeover is announced, no? You have also been asking repeatedly that they ask the same questions that Juan was asked, so maybe they have, if they are happy with the answers then there is no need to make it public, something that obviously annoyed Darryl which he mentioned when pulling the plug on the last deal.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Nov 17, 2017 17:39:49 GMT
As above, there shouldn't be an NDA in place for these discussions. Again, let's leave it for OxVox to answer.
|
|
|
Post by peterdev on Nov 17, 2017 19:54:56 GMT
I've been speaking to a fellow U's fan tonight and he told me the takeover is going through and he's heard he should be announced officially very soon. If it's the Thai consortium that was associated with Reading I have concerns. This may explain why we haven't been performing too well of late. I would like all the uncertainty to end and know sooner or later what is happening to our club. In the meantime I would like three points at Plymouth, one point would be OK as they are six matches unbeaten
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Nov 17, 2017 20:57:47 GMT
I've been speaking to a fellow U's fan tonight and he told me the takeover is going through and he's heard he should be announced officially very soon. If it's the Thai consortium that was associated with Reading I have concerns. This may explain why we haven't been performing too well of late. I would like all the uncertainty to end and know sooner or later what is happening to our club. In the meantime I would like three points at Plymouth, one point would be OK as they are six matches unbeaten So the "takeover" is happening very soon, but you don't know who by? 3 points tomorrow would be a real bonus..
|
|
|
Post by robie on Nov 17, 2017 21:01:36 GMT
I would rather Oxvox were at the meetings and having to stay quiet than outside of the meetings, with no influence, and having to whinge about it afterwards...
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Nov 17, 2017 21:04:52 GMT
Myles, the non disclosure. what do you think is in it for oxvox?
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Nov 17, 2017 21:10:51 GMT
If I may have my say, and as a member of Oxvox, I do not condone any meeting, if there was one, that involved any level of non disclosure. That is just contrary to what I would expect of an elected committee acting on the behalf of it's members.
I understand the nature of an NDA and would expect the relevant parties to respect that agreement but, and it's a big BUT, in this instance, Oxvox are acting as representatives of many others and as such, would have absolutely no right or excuse not to disclose what they had been told. (if such a meeting had taken place, I have no evidence for or against)
|
|
|
Post by Denissmithswig on Nov 17, 2017 21:30:10 GMT
If I may have my say, and as a member of Oxvox, I do not condone any meeting, if there was one, that involved any level of non disclosure. That is just contrary to what I would expect of an elected committee acting on the behalf of it's members. I understand the nature of an NDA and would expect the relevant parties to respect that agreement but, and it's a big BUT, in this instance, Oxvox are acting as representatives of many others and as such, would have absolutely no right or excuse not to disclose what they had been told. (if such a meeting had taken place, I have no evidence for or against) I too am a member of OxVox and have no problem with any meeting if there was one as I know they will give the members the details when the time is right. Eales said the JS deal was too public so I feel this time OxVox are acting in the right manner. They were elected to represent the fan base so we as a fan base need to trust them as we are the ones that elected them.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Nov 17, 2017 21:38:36 GMT
If I may have my say, and as a member of Oxvox, I do not condone any meeting, if there was one, that involved any level of non disclosure. That is just contrary to what I would expect of an elected committee acting on the behalf of it's members. I understand the nature of an NDA and would expect the relevant parties to respect that agreement but, and it's a big BUT, in this instance, Oxvox are acting as representatives of many others and as such, would have absolutely no right or excuse not to disclose what they had been told. (if such a meeting had taken place, I have no evidence for or against) Are you saying they shoukdnt have entered into a nda or that they should breach it?
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Nov 17, 2017 21:54:24 GMT
If I may have my say, and as a member of Oxvox, I do not condone any meeting, if there was one, that involved any level of non disclosure. That is just contrary to what I would expect of an elected committee acting on the behalf of it's members. I understand the nature of an NDA and would expect the relevant parties to respect that agreement but, and it's a big BUT, in this instance, Oxvox are acting as representatives of many others and as such, would have absolutely no right or excuse not to disclose what they had been told. (if such a meeting had taken place, I have no evidence for or against) Are you saying they shoukdnt have entered into a nda or that they should breach it? Wiggy has a valid point and maybe food for thought but, in the past, Oxvox have declined to adhere to an NDA as they are the representatives of their members and should, as they formulated, be able to inform their members of any meeting. If they have entered into an NDA then it is, in my opinion, contrary to their remit as representatives. However, if they have, however misguided that may be, then they will have to abide by it's terms. What they would achieve by that action is hopefully, positive.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Nov 17, 2017 22:38:08 GMT
IF OxVox have signed an NDA and attended this meeting then of course they should abide by it.
Whether they should have done so (if they have) will I suspect become more obvious in time. For example, if they were asked to attend discussions as the elected representatives of (at least some of) the supporters, to give input as to how the supporters see the future of the club, to have some influence - however slight - on things like ticket prices, the stadium, the facilities, the marketing etc etc but told they had to sign an NDA as a condition of doing that then I'd be OK with it.
Whether these potential new owners seem like the types to want to do that is something I doubt, but let's hold fire until we actually know the facts. That's a novel approach I know...
|
|
|
Post by foley on Nov 17, 2017 23:03:03 GMT
A really interesting debate.
Some think that Oxvox should have turned down the opportunity to meet with potential owners unless they could discuss with members.
Others that they should meet up with the potential owners (allegedly), and sign such NDA.
I kind of get both sides. I tend to come slightly more on the side of Oxvox going to such meetings and not excluding themselves from any discussions. I do get the other side of the argument though.
Goodness let's hope that we find out what is going on soon but far more importantly, it is positive news for OUFC
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Nov 18, 2017 8:36:47 GMT
I agree OxVox should be in a position to say whether they've had a meeting with a potential owner, and provide a high level of those discussions e.g. That their aware of the plans, any bids etc, but I guess having said that the fact that Darryl has invited them might suggest that he's considering the club's wealthfare.
The other potential issue, if OxVox signed an NDA and then had the meeting and didn't like what they heard then what?
Additionally, they could have agreed an NDA that allowed them to inform their members that they were having a meeting that would cover the points that Myles mentions above e.g. not all the details etc, and if Darryl & Thai's didn't agree to this then there would have been some concerns, I mean what would stop them from agreeing to that if they had nothing to hide? I mean, we don't want another Kassam type of relationship do we? e.g. treading on eggshells and bowing to his every wimp, I sure even Darryl would understand that.
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Nov 18, 2017 8:41:22 GMT
If I may have my say, and as a member of Oxvox, I do not condone any meeting, if there was one, that involved any level of non disclosure. That is just contrary to what I would expect of an elected committee acting on the behalf of it's members. I understand the nature of an NDA and would expect the relevant parties to respect that agreement but, and it's a big BUT, in this instance, Oxvox are acting as representatives of many others and as such, would have absolutely no right or excuse not to disclose what they had been told. (if such a meeting had taken place, I have no evidence for or against) I too am a member of OxVox and have no problem with any meeting if there was one as I know they will give the members the details when the time is right. Eales said the JS deal was too public so I feel this time OxVox are acting in the right manner. They were elected to represent the fan base so we as a fan base need to trust them as we are the ones that elected them. It was only too public in Darryl's eyes and for the life of me I cannot think why that might be.
|
|
|
Post by uptheus on Nov 18, 2017 8:45:11 GMT
A really interesting debate. Some think that Oxvox should have turned down the opportunity to meet with potential owners unless they could discuss with members. Others that they should meet up with the potential owners (allegedly), and sign such NDA. I kind of get both sides. I tend to come slightly more on the side of Oxvox going to such meetings and not excluding themselves from any discussions. I do get the other side of the argument though. Goodness let's hope that we find out what is going on soon but far more importantly, it is positive news for OUFC I suppose all good relationships/partnerships have things to hide, great foundations.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Nov 18, 2017 9:03:47 GMT
I agree OxVox should be in a position to say whether they've had a meeting with a potential owner, and provide a high level of those discussions e.g. That their aware of the plans, any bids etc, but I guess having said that the fact that Darryl has invited them might suggest that he's considering the club's wealthfare. The other potential issue, if OxVox signed an NDA and then had the meeting and didn't like what they heard then what? Additionally, they could have agreed an NDA that allowed them to inform their members that they were having a meeting that would cover the points that Myles mentions above e.g. not all the details etc, and if Darryl & Thai's didn't agree to this then there would have been some concerns, I mean what would stop them from agreeing to that if they had nothing to hide? I mean, we don't want another Kassam type of relationship do we? e.g. treading on eggshells and bowing to his every wimp, I sure even Darryl would understand that. I was wondering that too. Even with an NDA in place would Oxvox be in a position to say to the new potential owners that as a trust we cannot approve/welcome this takeover and will advise our members accordingly? How much could they say? ps I'm a member of Oxvox and pleased that they're probably involved with discussions, the fans should have some representation. Jem, Colin and others have my backing.
|
|
|
Post by Jason N on Nov 18, 2017 9:25:35 GMT
Darryl has often said that he has become friends with Jem since working with Oxvox, even though they haven't always agreed.. I know it's naive to think so, and I'll probably get slated for saying this but, maybe Jem would have some influence in the takeover decision if Oxvox as a group thought that the takeover "was not in the best interests of OUFC". After all, Darryl has always said that was his priority when considering any takeover bid. Cue the "Hes only in it for the money blah-de-da!" comments IMO, I think Darryl is sick of the club and wants rid.
|
|