General Supporters Panel Elections

[guyellow]

I wonder why the founding question was never asked?

"Do we, the supporters, want or need it? "

We say "Yes" it has a strong foundation and the majority wins.

It has unquestionable, democratic support.

Or has it been driven by the poor "customer satisfaction levels" in surveys, so the Club needs to be seen to be doing something so "do it we will" ?

Fact Check
It has been driven by the FSA in response to the Tracy Crouch review, not by any kind of customer survey response. Facilitated by Andy Taylor in the first and last meeting but the club was not at all involved in any of the setup process and document drafting.
It has the support of Oxvox who wrote a joint statement with the OUSP working group which has been quoted above.
It might end up being ineffective. But with good representatives willing to talk to fans regularly and put fans viewpoints to the club it could also prove to be key in not only dealing with problems but also identifying new initiatives to benefit fans.
The only way we will know is to see what happens. If anyone doesn't like the idea then they won't have to engage with the Panel. No existing channel of communication is being removed.

 

[bazzer9461]

In the last several releases from Oxvox they say that they are aware of ongoing discussions about the stadium but can't say anything due to confidentiality issues.

That is entirely fair, and I respect their position. But I've never seen you demanding a full verbatim record of their meetings with relevant parts redacted and replaced with annotations. Why not? I guess it's that we trust our elected representatives to act on behalf of the wider membership?

So what's the difference with doing the same with the Supporters Panel? After all, they will likely focus on areas which are significantly less important than a new stadium!

As others have said, some are looking for conspiracies that simply don't exist. Equally the constantly circular discussions are both tedious and pointless so I will also step away from these threads until a Panel has been elected or voting begins.

Good luck to everyone looking to get involved, you'll have my full support.

So you will be standing?

In the last several releases from Oxvox they say that they are aware of ongoing discussions about the stadium but can't say anything due to confidentiality issues.

Can totally understand that and appreciate that, but is them at to the Oxvox committee or to their members.
Also if Oxvox have been given that information it wouldn’t need to be made known to the fans council.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Your wish is my command.

You can message me your Fan number, as can anyone else.

Good on you.

Now stop phishing for personal information from multiple users across multiple threads

 

[Essexyellows]

Fact Check
It has been driven by the FSA in response to the Tracy Crouch review, not by any kind of customer survey response. Facilitated by Andy Taylor in the first and last meeting but the club was not at all involved in any of the setup process and document drafting.
It has the support of Oxvox who wrote a joint statement with the OUSP working group which has been quoted above.
It might end up being ineffective. But with good representatives willing to talk to fans regularly and put fans viewpoints to the club it could also prove to be key in not only dealing with problems but also identifying new initiatives to benefit fans.
The only way we will know is to see what happens. If anyone doesn't like the idea then they won't have to engage with the Panel. No existing channel of communication is being removed.

Fact Check: (with detail)

In 2016 there was an Expert Working Group set up to examine Ownership and Engagement.

Government Expert Working Group on Football Supporter Ownership and Engagement

The final report from the Expert Working Group on Football Supporter Ownership and Engagement.

www.gov.uk

They concluded:
"This is a report presented to Government. It has been prepared by football, with the authorities that run the game, working together with supporter organisations that speak on behalf of fans up and down the land. The report sets out a number of recommendations for what more can be done to encourage greater engagement between supporters and those that run their club, while also helping to remove barriers to supporter ownership, when such opportunities arise for credible supporters’ trusts to bid to own their club."

Subsequently....

Oliver Dowden (DCMS) asked for the review of football governance. Tracey Crouch led the review.

"This Independent Review, announced by Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden on 19 April 2021, is a comprehensive examination of the English football system with the aim of exploring ways of improving the governance, ownership and financial sustainability of clubs in the football pyramid, building on the strengths and benefits that our great game already provides the nation.

Following extensive engagement with fans and stakeholders across the whole football community, on which the foundations of this Review have been based, this interim set of findings and recommendations sets out the direction of travel towards the final recommendations. Further substantive work will take place over the coming months to feed into the Review’s final report in the Autumn."

Source:

Fan Led Review of Football Governance: interim findings and recommendations

This letter outlines the interim findings and recommendations of the Fan Led Review of Football Governance, led by Tracey Crouch MP

www.gov.uk

In TC`s letter to OD she even said:
"To date, there has been no consensus in the evidence presented to the Review on the correct vehicle for such fan engagement, with suggestions such as fan appointed directors not universally favoured by supporter groups"
Source: https://assets.publishing.service.g...letter_to_Oliver_Dowden_Accessible_Format.pdf

Don`t we already have a group of supporters who are keeping an eye on the governance, ownership and financial sustainability?

And yes, I completed the DCMS led survey.
I also understand why the FSA got involved as a major stakeholder.
I also know how Government reviews and consultations work having done several and been called to give evidence to Parliamentary working groups.

 

[Manorlounger]

Supporter engagement - Football Supporters' Association

thefsa.org.uk

 

[Essexyellows]

I should have added to the above post #124 that this has been rolling since 2011/2012.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493213/Football_Supporter_Ownership_and_Engagement_2015_FINAL__1_.docx

This EWG document also details that current supporters Trusts can be utilised as vehicles for the required change as has been suggested by several on here.

 

[Paul Cannell]

That's already been answered hasn't it? Can't be bothered to go through the posts but doesn't it say in the Terms of Reference that where confidentialities apply, an explanation will be given.

I don't know. But whether it is or isn't changes little. The annotation may simply say "removed due to confidentiality" or there may be no annotations but a wider explanation given elsewhere.

It's as irrelevant as asking about font size or double spacing!!

Hardly.

The question I asked, which hasn't been answered, was - if a redaction is made will the fact of the redaction be noted in the public minutes? This is important because if the redaction e.g. "Proposed new catering charge share to club - redacted" is noted in the public minute - the supporters (with whom you vow to be transparent) will know it was discussed while the private details are rightly veiled from public view whereas, if the redaction is not noted the minute won't show that (what may be an important issue) was discussed at all.

This is doubly relevant when the confidentiality terms provide unlimited scope for the Panel to prevent a panel member publicly mentioning something it wants to prevent being made public.

Of course it's obvious that some information is rightly withheld. It is equally obvious that some information will be in the interest of the fans to be public, but not the club or the Panel. The question relates to how that will be dealt with.

 

[Essexyellows]

Supporter engagement - Football Supporters' Association

thefsa.org.uk

OxVox | The Oxford United Supporters Trust

www.oxvox.org.uk

 

[Sheik djibouti]

A tad negative aren’t we?

Yes....yes you are

 

[bazzer9461]

Yes....yes you are

What’s up? Afraid of opinions?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

What’s up? Afraid of opinions?

No, when they're valid and justified, of course not. I just don't understand why you are being so over-sensitive about everything and making out there's some massive conspiracy to de-platform the fanbase....it's frankly ridiculous!

Criticism is extremely important, but not when it is for the sake of criticism and confrontation with nothing constructive to add. Much of this criticism looks and feels like the latter.

Lots of grown ups seemingly getting huffy over the seemingly inconsequential minutiae......

 

[bazzer9461]

No, when they're valid and justified, of course not. I just don't understand why you are being so over-sensitive about everything and making out there's some massive conspiracy to de-platform the fanbase....it's frankly ridiculous!

Criticism is extremely important, but not when it is for the sake of criticism and confrontation with nothing constructive to add. Much of this criticism looks and feels like the latter.

Lots of grown ups seemingly getting huffy over the seemingly inconsequential minutiae......

Maybe Oxvox and the fans council should merge because irrespective of what some are saying they will be doing the same.

 

[Manorlounger]

Maybe Oxvox and the fans council should merge because irrespective of what some are saying they will be doing the same.

For the umpteenth time @bazzer9461 , no they won't.

 

[bazzer9461]

For the umpteenth time @bazzer9461 , no they won't.

No they won’t so no need for 2 very very similar groups

 

[Marked Ox]

And the circular conversation goes on across multiple threads,

 

[bazzer9461]

And the circular conversation goes on across multiple threads,

Yes it does

 

[Paul Cannell]

Maybe Oxvox and the fans council should merge because irrespective of what some are saying they will be doing the same.

From OxVox website, Why Join page

OxVox is the independent Oxford United Supporters’ Trust.
We hold Mutual Society status and exist to provide an independent and accountable voice for supporters on matters affecting our club and on the whole experience of being a fan of OUFC.

The Trust is run by fans, for fans and acts as a critical friend to the club.

From OUSP Terms of Reference, para 1

The Oxford United Supporters’ Panel (“the Panel” also known as “OUSP”) exists to ensure regular structured dialogue between Oxford United Football Club (“the Club”) and its fanbase to improve both the club and supporters’ experience.

 

[bazzer9461]

From OxVox website, Why Join page


From OUSP Terms of Reference, para 1

Yep that’s what I read

 

[lodeyellow]

A simple question with regard to the OUSP's Election Policy document (version 1.1).

Clause 6.2 in the Statements and Campaigning section reads: "All candidates' statements ... will be validated and published on the supporters' panel webpage, in a random order, once the application is closed" (my italics).

What's the reason for publishing the statements in random order? The usual practice in any election I've been involved in is to publish such statements or manifestos, where they're combined in one document, in alphabetical order according to the candidates' surnames. For example, in the mayoral election booklet circulated by our local council in Cambridgeshire in May, Mr Johnson's statement appeared first, followed by Mr Palmer's and then by Mr Van de Weyer's. Alphabetical order is used in all national and local elections for listing candidates' names on notices of election, ballot papers, etc., and is a convention understood and accepted by the public generally.

Publishing statements in random order seems to me to be a completely unnecessary complication and - perish the thought! - could even lead to suspicions of jiggery-pokery by the more cynical among us.

 

[guyellow]

A simple question with regard to the OUSP's Election Policy document (version 1.1).

Clause 6.2 in the Statements and Campaigning section reads: "All candidates' statements ... will be validated and published on the supporters' panel webpage, in a random order, once the application is closed" (my italics).

What's the reason for publishing the statements in random order? The usual practice in any election I've been involved in is to publish such statements or manifestos, where they're combined in one document, in alphabetical order according to the candidates' surnames. For example, in the mayoral election booklet circulated by our local council in Cambridgeshire in May, Mr Johnson's statement appeared first, followed by Mr Palmer's and then by Mr Van de Weyer's. Alphabetical order is used in all national and local elections for listing candidates' names on notices of election, ballot papers, etc., and is a convention understood and accepted by the public generally.

Publishing statements in random order seems to me to be a completely unnecessary complication and - perish the thought! - could even lead to suspicions of jiggery-pokery by the more cynical among us.

I've sent your query to the Election Management Group. They can also be contacted by email ouspelections@gmail.com or on twitter, but would be helpful to share the response here.