tomoufc wrote:Also is this really how a supporters group should work - (unofficially?) backing a takeover without the knowledge of its membership last year, and making secret contingency plans now? The point is - if you're going to run a supporters group or a fan club everything must be open and democratically accountable. 1 fan, 1 vote, not a select group of decision makers. On that point - OxVox could really do with some people stepping-up to take part in their elections, if they're still to come.
disagree with your first point, agree with your second.
the trust is open and accountable. the AGM's in a few weeks, everyone sees a report on what's been done, the accounts, and will have the opportunity to ask questions, put forward opinions and suggestions, and the plan is for that to be followed up with another member survey on trust priorities for those that can't be there. we've just been through a month where any member can put themselves forward for the committee.
but as with our national democracy, it's a representative democracy, and so it needs people to take part by putting themselves forward as representatives for it to work like that.
i'm stepping down from the committee after the next AGM, but here are some of the things i've learnt from my time working on it:
1. lots of people have views on what oxvox should or shouldn't do, what's wrong with it, and how to change that, but of those people there aren't that many who are willing to get involved to make that happen (in descending order of willingness: to join, vote in surveys, and even fewer willing to give up time to work on the committee).
2. i put myself forward to the committee because i thought (and think) a supporters' trust is vital to making a modern football club a club, and so i felt if that's what i believe, i needed to be willing to give up some of my time into it. we don't currently have enough people willing (or able, obviously in some cases) to do that.
3. that means that the work of running the trust falls on largely the same few people. the implications of a committee that's below numbers are several:
a) with not enough candidates to make an election, if members don't like the committee's direction, they feel they have no choice in that and complain that it is not democratic.
b) with a below capacity committee, the work of simply administering the trust takes up the majority of the committee's time, and there's little capacity to do much else. people query what the trust is achieving and what the point of it is.
c) committee members get fed up of dealing with that work in their spare time while having people telling them there's no point to what they're doing, or that they are failing, as they're not achieving anything.
d) they leave and the problem is exacerbated.
e) return to point a) and repeat.
4. if a higher proportion of members were willing to put themselves forward for just one term, i think a lot of those problems go away. the committee is refreshed with different views on a regular basis, members have a more direct input both as committee members and committee elections, more gets done, and the work becomes perhaps - dare i say it - fun?..
particularly ahead of the last two AGMs i've extended the period for people to put themselves forward as nominees, encouraged people to put themselves forward by offering a guide as to what's involved, and offered to speak to anyone who wants to talk it through in detail. that's had some effect on who's come forward, but not enough to change the problems i've outlined above.
i feel like a cracked record, but oxvox is what oxford supporters make of it. the harsher formulation of this that i've got to over the last seven years is this: a club's supporters get the supporters' trust they deserve.
