Leyton Orient Supporters Reps

[Lucky7]

Apply within

https://www.leytonorient.com/2019/08/22 ... ers-group/

[Disoriented]

I nominate Byways.

[Give it to Jabo]

Took some time, but the pledge has been honoured. Was it not a representative on the Board originally? I may, of course, have been mistaken.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Absolutely furious that floundering, useless, dead in the water, podcast hosts are no longer involved by default

[Lucky7]

That’s your fault for wanting to be hip and trendy not default of the club

[CreamofSumYungGai]

Not sure this is what was actually pledged at the time of takeover.

Regardless, so long as the Board buy into this - and I’ve every expectation they will - this set up should actually work better.

Well done the club.

[Admin]

Don’t see why this place doesn’t automatically get a rep.

I reckon CEB’s still up for doing it

[Lucky7]

Don’t see why this place doesn’t automatically get a rep.

I reckon CEB’s still up for doing it

This place has a rep alright
But not the one you desire

[Adz]

Are any of the 4 permanent reps on here?

[Admin]

Don’t see why this place doesn’t automatically get a rep.

I reckon CEB’s still up for doing it

This place has a rep alright
But not the one you desire

Bitter.

[Lucky7]

Don’t see why this place doesn’t automatically get a rep.

I reckon CEB’s still up for doing it

This place has a rep alright
But not the one you desire

Bitter.

Bitter
Truth hurt does it Mr Admin

[Admin]

Yep. Can barely type this through the tears.

[Long slender neck]

Assume Mr R***r will be on board?

[Lucky7]

Assume Mr R***r will be on board?

God help us

[BoniO]

Faith should be a shoe in for this, well as long as there's no written side to the gig........

[slacker]

Shame the Fan Director promise seems to have been shelved, but this is a step back in the right direction.

[Max B Gold]

Shame the Fan Director promise seems to have been shelved, but this is a step back in the right direction.

It's crumbs from the rich man's table if ever I saw it. A mere sop.

[Disoriented]

Faith should be a shoe in for this, well as long as there's no written side to the gig........

Wrong. Presumably there is a verbal side. What makes you think he can manage that?

Also, what happens when there is a question about the validity of minutes of meetings. Barking ‘Fresh logs please’ won’t cut it.

[Lucky7]

Faith should be a shoe in for this, well as long as there's no written side to the gig........

Wrong. Presumably there is a verbal side. What makes you think he can manage that?

Also, what happens when there is a question about the validity of minutes of meetings. Barking ‘Fresh logs please’ won’t cut it.

Wood Faith bee abol to doo te minoots?

[Disoriented]

Faith should be a shoe in for this, well as long as there's no written side to the gig........

Wrong. Presumably there is a verbal side. What makes you think he can manage that?

Also, what happens when there is a question about the validity of minutes of meetings. Barking ‘Fresh logs please’ won’t cut it.

Wood Faith bee abol to doo te minoots?

‘Hi all’ is not a professional way to open minutes Lucky.

[eagwgw]

Not sure why it is has taken so long, or why there is no board place - perhaps squabbles about who it would be.

But it is a step in the right direction. Not sure why the assorted supps organisations need two representatives each, but notably including Macklin and Ling this gives the club a numerical advantage in the meetings.

I do feel there is a bit of a reliance at pointing to other things as to why things are done (ie the increase in disabled season tickets). We are doing this because it is the right thing, not because of any requirement.

I don't think twice a year is enough really, six months is a long time and any promised actions may be forgotten during this time. The Italians fans forums were a good idea but turned into individual tea and biscuit events with no continuity between them although that wasn't really possible because Bitchtits called all the shots and everyone else was puppets.

Personally I feel it should be within a wider program of ad-hoc fan consultation evenings. I regard stuff like the badge change, the kits as slight own-goals and if a range of fans had been consulted, it would have been done differently.

Perhaps the club could open an online suggestion box on the site, and any issue that is brought up more than a certain number of times is guaranteed to be discussed at these meetings.

[A Pedant]

Not sure why it is has taken so long, or why there is no board place - perhaps squabbles about who it would be.

But it is a step in the right direction. Not sure why the assorted supps organisations need two representatives each, but notably including Macklin and Ling this gives the club a numerical advantage in the meetings.

Nope, no squabbles at all (and I say that as someone who was heavily involved with every meeting and email about this from day 1). All our discussions about a supporter director revolved around election process, accountability to the fanbase and club board requirements, not about individuals.

I can't speak for the club board as to why they eventually chose a different path, but they've given the same reason publicly in the announcement and to us (LOFT and LOSC) - they think a representative group fulfils the 'ask' around consultation and overseeing governance with a wider range of fan voices. There was also some stuff a while back about the IRS and the club being "quasi US" (as stated by Nigel and Kent on a past Outlook podcast), about which I make no comment as I'm no expert on US tax, although to be honest I think that's a minor reason.

I think you've misunderstood the meeting format, it won't be the whole club board there - there will be 9 fans at each meeting plus the SLO, with "at least 2 club board members". Even with Danny Macklin and one or two others, I don't see there being more on the 'club side' than the 'fan side'.

[eagwgw]

I don't think I have misunderstood, in that at least 6 people in the meeting are permanent fixtures and 5 are not. Of course, everyone in the meeting can be construed to be a 'fan'.

This works in the good times, but in the bad we have seen in the past that LOSC didn't really want to rock the boat with the club in case their bar was taken away. Fair play that LOFT did, but I mean that fans with no agenda are in a minority.

As mentioned before, the issue is with representation. We have a core of c.5,000 fans and perhaps an extended looser outer circle of another 25,000. LOSC have something like 1,000 members, I don't know how many LOFT have today but there is bound to be some overlap, with some members of both.

Of course people may justify the existence of those reps at the group, because fans can use them as a channel to pass on topics, but using those numbers the vast majority of the core fans are not affiliated to these groups, and the numbers should reflect that. It would also be handy to run some add-on meetings for the extended circle (who would probably need to be incentivised to turn up), to understand how to convert these guys into core fans. If we are interested in organic growth, then few insights are likely from those already converted.

Engagement with fans in a constructive structured setting is quite valuable I feel and is proactive rather than reactive (in that Macklin can canvas opinions rather than simply responding to them). Under the current proposed system, out of the current core 5,000 we are getting in 10 different fans a year to talk (5 per meeting).

I don't think that is high enough, and through offering different events more frequently this number could be in the 100s.

[Max B Gold]

Not sure why it is has taken so long, or why there is no board place - perhaps squabbles about who it would be.

But it is a step in the right direction. Not sure why the assorted supps organisations need two representatives each, but notably including Macklin and Ling this gives the club a numerical advantage in the meetings.

Nope, no squabbles at all (and I say that as someone who was heavily involved with every meeting and email about this from day 1). All our discussions about a supporter director revolved around election process, accountability to the fanbase and club board requirements, not about individuals.

I can't speak for the club board as to why they eventually chose a different path, but they've given the same reason publicly in the announcement and to us (LOFT and LOSC) - they think a representative group fulfils the 'ask' around consultation and overseeing governance with a wider range of fan voices. There was also some stuff a while back about the IRS and the club being "quasi US" (as stated by Nigel and Kent on a past Outlook podcast), about which I make no comment as I'm no expert on US tax, although to be honest I think that's a minor reason.

I think you've misunderstood the meeting format, it won't be the whole club board there - there will be 9 fans at each meeting plus the SLO, with "at least 2 club board members". Even with Danny Macklin and one or two others, I don't see there being more on the 'club side' than the 'fan side'.

I've made my views on this clear further up the thread. Given what has happened to the club in the Bechetti era the least the club could do is to have a fan Board member. This "Forum" being set up is just a talking shop and will lapse in to disuse when it is obvious that it achieves nothing.

Re the US tax point. The "quasiness USness" of LOFC Ltd will be settled by reference to the US/UK Double Tax treaty. It is most likely a company resident in the UK but even if it were deemed "quasi" (whatever that means) US resident I don't see why that is an issue as the losses would be available to set against the US profits of other companies in common ownership!

[StepneyO]

Not sure why it is has taken so long, or why there is no board place - perhaps squabbles about who it would be.

But it is a step in the right direction. Not sure why the assorted supps organisations need two representatives each, but notably including Macklin and Ling this gives the club a numerical advantage in the meetings.

I do feel there is a bit of a reliance at pointing to other things as to why things are done (ie the increase in disabled season tickets). We are doing this because it is the right thing, not because of any requirement.

I don't think twice a year is enough really, six months is a long time and any promised actions may be forgotten during this time. The Italians fans forums were a good idea but turned into individual tea and biscuit events with no continuity between them although that wasn't really possible because Bitchtits called all the shots and everyone else was puppets.

Personally I feel it should be within a wider program of ad-hoc fan consultation evenings. I regard stuff like the badge change, the kits as slight own-goals and if a range of fans had been consulted, it would have been done differently.

Perhaps the club could open an online suggestion box on the site, and any issue that is brought up more than a certain number of times is guaranteed to be discussed at these meetings.

It has taken so long because for the last two years it has not been a requirement of the league we have been in. The Club are merely doing the bare minimum as per EFL Supporter (Or "Customer...") Charter.

This isn't really an act of initiative by the Club, its a requirement of the League. A token gesture and bare minimum standards are being reached by doing this