Is OUSP Fit For Purpose?

[ThatSlopesATwelfthMan]

With respect it is neither I, or OUSP that is putting any barriers between OxVox and the club. Its the exact opposite with us all working together to try to resolve some of these key issues, including looking at alternative measures to address fan engagement and CAB/FAB.

It's interesting that you see my posts as confrontational, but not others who post that I and others have a hidden agenda or make personal remarks. Recently there was a regular poster who called the female secretary of OUSP, and a lifelong fan, a "bitch" on this forum. Thankfully that was deleted but there have been numerous other comments that are unnecessary when talking about other fans who are trying to make things better for others.

You're right about the bigger battles, and as a life member of OxVox I would always encourage everyone to join them to give them an even greater voice. I have always supported OxVox and will happily work with them to hold the board to account and ensure that we get the stadium that we so desperately need. I wouldn't do anything that puts the future of our club in doubt, and would never be part of a group that did that.

But I honestly don't see that as OUSP. These are just a handful of people who try to enhance the experiences of every fan, and to ensure that all supporters have a voice on match day issues. If we can also assist in leafleting about the stadium or meet with council representatives too, then that's all bonus stuff.

I understand that there will always be those that have different views, and some that were opposed to OUSP at the outset, and more so now. I also understand the frustrations regarding communication, fans forums, marketing and a general disregard for the fanbase from key figures at the club. OUSP have shared the exact same concerns openly within our minutes and directly with club representatives. In 99% of this we are all on exactly the same page.

But I honestly don't understand the hostility towards a handful of fans who give up their time for the benefit of others. And when I see that, I'll not apologise for defending them.

Hi Scotch. I appreciate this post and the thought that went into it. I also appreciate that you're giving up your time to try and do a good thing for fans and the club. I don't doubt your intentions for a second. But...

Given what we're seeing from executives at the club I think it's important everyone keeps on their toes here. Don't take it personally. I probably won't change your mind but here are a few questions I think every fan should ask themselves.

Has leadership at the club done anything to actively celebrate, support or promote our independent supporters trust OxVox? If not why not?

When looking at fan engagement and improving match day experience has leadership at the club invited Oxvox to input into how that could be done before acting or to help design an approach that includes all? If not why not?

Has leadership at the club kept it's word to Oxvox and fans on things like fans forums? If not why not?

Has leadership at the club ever made unilateral structural decisions on what fans might want from them without asking them directly or via the one body that exists to provide a collective voice? If not why not?

Has leadership at the club shown respect to the historic and largely grassroots groups like Oxvox and the yellow army who have seen us through thick and thin down the years by regularly talking and listening? Or have they been largely antagonistic and dismissive? Why might that be?

Has leadership at the club shown an understanding of fan priorities or tried to understand how and when to communicate or have they tended to speak through media releases and on their own terms using jargon and distraction?

Has leadership at the club shown itself to be open and collaborative or closed and controlling? And if the latter what might that suggest about their motives when forming groups like ousp or this new FAB thingy.

Going to stop now but the list goes on. I've got a lot of experience in industrial relations and although that doesn't map exactly to running a football club there are parallels. Everything I see from the rabble running our club stinks of divide and conquer.

So with lots of appreciation I would ask members of OUSP to be proud of their commitment but vigilant to the possibility they're being played.

 

[Scotchegg]

Hi Scotch. I appreciate this post and the thought that went into it. I also appreciate that you're giving up your time to try and do a good thing for fans and the club. I don't doubt your intentions for a second. But...

Given what we're seeing from executives at the club I think it's important everyone keeps on their toes here. Don't take it personally. I probably won't change your mind but here are a few questions I think every fan should ask themselves.

Has leadership at the club done anything to actively celebrate, support or promote our independent supporters trust OxVox? If not why not?

When looking at fan engagement and improving match day experience has leadership at the club invited Oxvox to input into how that could be done before acting or to help design an approach that includes all? If not why not?

Has leadership at the club kept it's word to Oxvox and fans on things like fans forums? If not why not?

Has leadership at the club ever made unilateral structural decisions on what fans might want from them without asking them directly or via the one body that exists to provide a collective voice? If not why not?

Has leadership at the club shown respect to the historic and largely grassroots groups like Oxvox and the yellow army who have seen us through thick and thin down the years by regularly talking and listening? Or have they been largely antagonistic and dismissive? Why might that be?

Has leadership at the club shown an understanding of fan priorities or tried to understand how and when to communicate or have they tended to speak through media releases and on their own terms using jargon and distraction?

Has leadership at the club shown itself to be open and collaborative or closed and controlling? And if the latter what might that suggest about their motives when forming groups like ousp or this new FAB thingy.

Going to stop now but the list goes on. I've got a lot of experience in industrial relations and although that doesn't map exactly to running a football club there are parallels. Everything I see from the rabble running our club stinks of divide and conquer.

So with lots of appreciation I would ask members of OUSP to be proud of their commitment but vigilant to the possibility they're being played.

I will give you the most honest response I can, but this is very much a personal response and not one that reflects OUSP or my position on that panel.

I will start with the why. I feel that the Senior Leadership Team, and the Owners to an extent, think that putting money into the club, bringing players in and working towards the stadium is enough and we as a fan group should be grateful for this. There is a certain truth to this, and there will be a number of fans who just want to see the best possible team and to finally get our new home.

They will look at increased average gates, higher retail sales and progress on the pitch as evidence that they're doing a good job.

However, football is not just a business and many fans have a huge emotional tie to their club and want so much more. I'm sure I'm not alone in not only wanting us to win, but to do it the 'Oxford' way. I don't only want to see the best possible players, but I want to see our own kids come through as well as developing other young talent. I want to see the link between the players and the fans, the fans with each other, and the club with the wider community. These are things that are difficult to show through KPI's but they matter to most of us.

So I think that there is a difference in the club feeling that they're are succeeding, and supporters actually feeling the same. I also think the SLT will see that communication from the club has not always been very professional. We only need to look back at previous transfer windows to see the number of leaks. This time we heard virtually nothing until players were in the building. There was also the stuff around KR and general gossip around the club which has pretty much stopped in the last 6 months or so.

I feel that there were some trust issues throughout the club, and it's arguably a good thing to tighten up on some of this. Doing so may mean that some employees have been pulled up, and others may feel that they've had their wings clipped.

So, along with a very different view on what success looks like, and curbs on unsolicited communication has meant (in my opinion) that the club has pulled back on some of the expected communication structures through OxVox and OUSP, and have created a wedge between supporter groups and the wider fanbase as a whole.

Now, rather than recognising this and ease things off, they appear to have doubled down and this is only likely to make things worse.

The frustrating thing for me is that there was a real opportunity to get these things right. Last season was an absolute mess, and I think it's fair to say that this came as a consequence of several people taking their eye off the ball during the previous closed season. Tim Williams missed some of this having only arrived in October, and could have held his hands up to what had happened and given assurances that things would improve. A good pre-season in the transfer market and a positive start on the pitch would have seen an October fans forum being pretty well received. There could have been some controls, and (personally) I'm not against some prepared questions that enable general themes to be addressed rather than having several similar questions asked on the night. There could have been a live feed (with better mics) that would have enable fans to be involved from further afield as well as having a recording that gives some accountability after the event.

This could have followed with another forum around March this year, with the focus on season tickets, shirts and targets for the following season as well as important updates on the stadium.

In addition to the fans forums we could have seen continuations of the Stand United presentations on the stadium, or even a similar presentation from other areas of the club - Des, Women's Team, OU in the Community etc.

But these opportunities have been missed and there is an even greater wedge than before, despite the general improvements in things. If these things were in place then I don't think there would have been so many concerns about the CAB/FAB proposals or so much anxiety about the stadium.

The good thing is that some of this is still recoverable. A fans forum this March, positive news on the stadium, further investment in young prospects on the pitch and a commitment to genuine fan engagement and positive communication with supporter group(s) and the wider fanbase, along with some apologies of how we got into this mess, and we can find something to build on.

But the ball is very much in their court and we'll see where we end up.

As I have said, this is my opinion as a supporter of 40+ years and nothing to do with my role within OUSP.

 

[Essexyellows]

Formally? i.e emailed them?

Yep. As part of my considered response to the coming clusterfudge that is the CAB/FAB

 

[Essexyellows]

Because it would likely need to be disbanded in its current form to then reform under OxVox.

I do find it odd that OUSP members former and present get so defensive on the topic, it’s as if there’s a hidden agenda.

Supporters literally want you to do the same thing, just with less influence from OUFC

It wouldn't really disband from an operational point would it? The same people would be doing the same work at the same meetings, only representing our supporters trust which carries far more weight and puts more pressure on the club at the meetings. Is there any reason you're against doing this for OxVox?

So with lots of appreciation I would ask members of OUSP to be proud of their commitment but vigilant to the possibility they're being played.

At last we are slowly seeing the reality of what is happening.

The Club management have read the Crouch report and the bit about having fans closely engaged/embedded within the club structure.
The Club management decided it couldn`t be OxVox - far to much leverage amongst the core customer base. Far to "awkward"
The Club management created the idea/framework for OUSP, the willing volunteers done the mundane legwork of constitutions, policy etc. with the support of the FSA.
The Club Management engaged with the volunteers that stepped forward - Crouch Report box ticked.
The Club Management then tacitly decided to ignore OUSP or just throw them crumbs, the box is ticked.
The Club Management then drop in the CAB/FAB idea and format on their terms with bare minimum representation of the fans.
The Club Management decided 1 seat and "half a dozen" selected people.

Getting the idea yet?

 

[OUSP]

You are so off the mark.
The one place we really see division is on this forum.

The reason OxVox has not been able to get to meet with senior execs has nothing to do with OUSP, and a lot to do with the new club leadership (who weren't even here when OUSP was set up).

The MoU OUSP has with the club at least guarantees meaningful (and transparent, minuted) meetings with operational managers. You might not always like the responses, but you won't be tripping over bollards in the South East corner today.

To say we could be doing the same work in one meeting would lead to significantly more, and longer, meetings with less focus. We meet with different people at the club. The OxVox rep in our meetings ensures continuity and that OxVox is as fully involved in what we do as they choose to be.
It was OUSP who suggested revising the CAB proposals with OxVox to see if we could get something workable. Both groups have since been working closely on this.
It's having the two groups in the clubs left and right ears that means we will soon be able to announce the details of a jointly run Fans Forum. Run by the fan groups not the club. One voice might not have done this.

We work together when we need to, and in parallel most of the time as our remits are quite distinct.

Get behind your supporter groups, focus your frustrations elsewhere.

Now come on, let's all enjoy the match today.

 

[Essexyellows]

You are so off the mark.
The one place we really see division is on this forum.

The reason OxVox has not been able to get to meet with senior execs has nothing to do with OUSP, and a lot to do with the new club leadership (who weren't even here when OUSP was set up).

The MoU OUSP has with the club at least guarantees meaningful (and transparent, minuted) meetings with operational managers. You might not always like the responses, but you won't be tripping over bollards in the South East corner today.

To say we could be doing the same work in one meeting would lead to significantly more, and longer, meetings with less focus. We meet with different people at the club. The OxVox rep in our meetings ensures continuity and that OxVox is as fully involved in what we do as they choose to be.
It was OUSP who suggested revising the CAB proposals with OxVox to see if we could get something workable. Both groups have since been working closely on this.
It's having the two groups in the clubs left and right ears that means we will soon be able to announce the details of a jointly run Fans Forum. Run by the fan groups not the club. One voice might not have done this.

We work together when we need to, and in parallel most of the time as our remits are quite distinct.

Get behind your supporter groups, focus your frustrations elsewhere.

Now come on, let's all enjoy the match today.

"Its not us its you"................... where else can the merits of OUSP be discussed by a broad church of supporters than this place? Do tell.

"Run by the fans group, singular, and a bunch of willing volunteers that could meet in a phone box"

The club have just passed the buck to you to do something they can`t be bothered with.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Recently there was a regular poster who called the female secretary of OUSP, and a lifelong fan, a "bitch" on this forum. Thankfully that was deleted but there have been numerous other comments that are unnecessary when talking about other fans who are trying to make things better for others.

A less sensational and whining statement would be that I used a metaphorical phrase that was taken by some as a reference to the OUSP Secretary. I apologised for that potential inference publicly. I repeat that I didn't know the OUSP Secretary was (is) female.

But you like to play the man rather than answer questions. That's the political way.

 

[Scotchegg]

A less sensational and whining statement would be that I used a metaphorical phrase that was taken by some as a reference to the OUSP Secretary. I apologised for that potential inference publicly. I repeat that I didn't know the OUSP Secretary was (is) female.

But you like to play the man rather than answer questions. That's the political way.

Another way to describe such events was that you used an offensive term to refer to a lifelong fan, that you don't know, simply because they are part of an organisation that you disagree with.

So I think I played the man exactly right.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Anyway. Why wouldn't OUSP be as effective if it joined forces under the independent representatives - OxVox?

 

[Scotchegg]

Anyway. Why wouldn't OUSP be as effective if it joined forces under the independent representatives - OxVox?

Read the comment by the secretary of OUSP for more information.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Read it. What's your view?

 

[Carpy]

The reason OxVox has not been able to get to meet with senior execs has nothing to do with OUSP, and a lot to do with the new club leadership (who weren't even here when OUSP was set up).

Or it could be that the club doesn't see the need to when it's fulfilling its obligation by meeting with OUSP, who then don't talk about anything medium to long term as that mostly falls under OxVox.

 

[Scotchegg]

Read it. What's your view?

I share her view that having two groups focusing on different aspects helps provide more ownership of each role. The argument always come down to whether OUSP could work with an independent organisation such as OxVox. But it ignores the fact that OUSP is also entirely independent. The club have no say in who joins OUSP, and only a lack of volunteers have prevented us from holding open elections where the entire fan base could selected prospective candidates. In my time with the panel there has never been a single item that wasn't raised on behalf of supporters, even if it is something that individual panel members have differing opinions off. All meetings are minuted and shared, including via this forum. Ahead of the stadium project exhibition, I asked on here if anyone had any questions on concerns that they wanted raising, but we're unable to do so in person. I'm always available to share concerns, and have had several forum members messaging me and I have shared any responses back to them.

What more independence would you want?

 

[Paul Cannell]

Two groups can focus under one organisational framework and achieve the same or better results by having a common aim that is agreed, defined and explained to the supporter base.

Who funds OUSP? Has it any independent funds? If the existence of the club becomes threatened (by e.g. stadium delays, management negligence or other miscreancy) where will OUSP stand? It's impossible to tell, since OUSP is a creature of the club not the supporters. Who funds OUSP?

I would like to think (accepting that OUSP does some good work and that good people commit their time to it) OUSP would stand against the club when the chips are down. As long as OUSP won't cut it's umbilical cord to the club and work under the independent supporter organisation OUSP won't boo. Ever.

Reject individual supporter board members on the FAB (whatever), share board membership under the (yeah) independent supporters' organisation (OxVox) and show me you behave independently. That's the sort of independence I want.

 

[Scotchegg]

Do you honestly think OUSP is funded?? I'll have to remember to put my invoice in!!!

 

[Scotchegg]

We all give our time voluntarily. We claim no travel or other expenses. We meet at the training ground when meeting with club officials or via Teams if meeting amongst ourselves. The last meeting with Jim Goddard was also over Teams due to flooding at the training ground. We bring our own tea and coffee, Grace makes wonderful cakes. We support various "matchday activations" hours before kickoff without any benefits at all. To my knowledge, no one has ever gained a match day ticket or other favours from anyone at the club for anything.

We are all supporters, with a couple of hundred years supporting between us. If the club was threatened we would all be right at the front of any action. We have raised serious concerns about the stadium, about funding, about communication, about FAB, all of which is minuted. We raise every concern with the appropriate area of the club, although I'm sure most would accept that some of these issues are not always appropriate for public disclosure.

We are entirely independent, and we act as such in everything we do.

I'm sorry if you don't believe it, but you can't please everyone.

 

[OUSP]

We have our structure defined and publicly documented here. We do not require funding, we are advisory so do not generate expenses.
OxVox is a member organisation requiring subscriptions, they undertake fundraising, and have sponsorship therefore have a different financial set up and have to provide accounts. I couldn't find the most recent ones on their website to link for you but they must be there somewhere.
We absolutely stand for the supporters and securing the future of the club. We aren't afraid to call out concerns about club management. Did you see any of our submissions to the Council regarding the stadium? Do you listen to Wasn't at the Game?

 

[Essexyellows]

Two groups can focus under one organisational framework and achieve the same or better results by having a common aim that is agreed, defined and explained to the supporter base.

Who funds OUSP? Has it any independent funds? If the existence of the club becomes threatened (by e.g. stadium delays, management negligence or other miscreancy) where will OUSP stand? It's impossible to tell, since OUSP is a creature of the club not the supporters. Who funds OUSP?

I would like to think (accepting that OUSP does some good work and that good people commit their time to it) OUSP would stand against the club when the chips are down. As long as OUSP won't cut it's umbilical cord to the club and work under the independent supporter organisation OUSP won't boo. Ever.

Reject individual supporter board members on the FAB (whatever), share board membership under the (yeah) independent supporters' organisation (OxVox) and show me you behave independently. That's the sort of independence I want.

Exactly so and the best way to progress a singular, independent supporters organisation.

As it stands it looks like a bunch of "happy clappy`s" playing tick box bingo with no measurable or perceivable benefit as per the current vote standing where 23.8% feel it is "fit for purpose" which suggests 76.2% do not.

That will not make a jot of difference to a cabal of people who are so blind they choose not see what would gain them far more acceptance and traction amongst the fan base and with the club.

 

[Scotchegg]

A group so secret that their names and photos are available for all to see, alongside the minutes of their meetings!

Meanwhile SEVENTEEN, largely unidentifiable individuals on an internet forum are calling for the disbandment of a group set up to represent several thousand supporters.

 

[Essexyellows]

View attachment 17735

A group so secret that their names and photos are available for all to see, alongside the minutes of their meetings!

Meanwhile SEVENTEEN, largely unidentifiable individuals on an internet forum are calling for the disbandment of a group set up to represent several thousand supporters.

A "cabal of dissidents" sounds spot on to me.

Representative democracy getting you a bit sore?

23.8% probably includes the cabal.