Jimski wrote:This whole situation really confuses me now. I haven't really kept track of OU supporters groups for quite a while now, though I have always been an OxVox member. But when people such as Trevor are being sidelined against their wishes, it does give me pause for thought. What does come out of these reports is that OxVox / YellowArmy seem very much tied to the club now - is that a mistaken impression? I'd really rather we had a properly independent fans group.
i would second what snake says above about what a united fan base can achieve, and agree that some of what's happened of late have really not helped that. in my own view, a lot of this is driven by personal differences/problems, and that's a real shame that for whatever reason it can't all be sorted out for the advancement of supporter interests at OUFC. i guess when you have groups of volunteers though, if people really can't agree, then they walk away, which i think is a waste of potential and does no one any good.
anyway, aside from saying that, i'll stay out of all that and just answer the question about oxvox independence (i'm not involved in the yellow army, although have helped hang up banners and so on for them when i can).
oxvox is exactly the same as when it was established. it is funded by member fees, fund-raising efforts, and donations, so is independent from the club or anyone else in that sense. it has an elected committee that run it. a third of the committee resign each year, and any member is welcome (indeed encouraged!) to stand for the committee (for those of you who are members, you have until midnight next thursday to cast your votes in the current election. let me know if you haven't had details of this). so it is independent in that sense too. don't like what the trust is doing? think we're not critical enough? you have an annual opportunity to help run it and change that.
i think the trust has always maintained an independent stance in relation to the club. what i think is true at the moment, which hasn't always been true in the past, is that we have a pretty good relationship with the club, and by-and-large the committee (i hope the rest of them don't mind me speaking on their behalf) have a postive view of the way the club is run at the moment.
for me i think that as it strikes me the club has a real long-term vision in place, and the signs are that they are delivering more than just words on this. the things i like of that plan (and i think these coincide with oxvox's long-standing coda) are:
1. a community-oriented club (i think this season we've seen the club making sure players and staff are mixing with supporters before and after games in a way we haven't before, community events are attended, the club were for the first time willing to discuss the issue of formal supporter representation, and so on),
2. a club that looks to bring through young players (the evidence is now there to see on the pitch, and i must admit to being surprised how well those young players have delivered for Us),
3. a club with better control on its finances (a longer-term aim that will only show results over time, but i would say that from what we can tell things are moving in the right direction),
4. a successful club on the pitch as a result of those previous aims (we'll see, but the league position at the moment is slightly higher than my pre-season prediction).
i guess if a supporters' trust is not constantly throwing criticisms the way of the club, then it opens itself up to that charge of being tied to the club. but i don't see the point of being critical for the sake of being critical. i hope we're critical when needed (so pushing the club on the issue of homophobia, providing feedback around issues of pricing, and so on: and we very much have our eye on those last two points i listed above to see how these continue to develop), but equally i think we need to be positive when there's something to be positive about. my view is that so far this season there's been a lot to be positive about.