Presidents Progress

Good one.

Charlie Wood wrote:

Just like a change of government it's always the easy option to blame all the woes on the last lot. There's only so long that can go on but it's convenient to milk it for as long as possible.

I'm sure Andy is still banging on about Maggie, given the chance

Now, now Charlie, I haven't spoken of That Bloody Woman for a long time (although I wish they'd waited til after she'd died to make that film - that way it could have had a happy ending), but your point is valid.

I think I should probably expand on my earlier agreement with jock's excellent post; after all, I know that these days Chris is an avid reader of my published works, so I'll put a bit more flesh on the bones of my thinking:

Chris Webb is the reason I joined the Trust. When he took over from Graham Clark the whole emphasis of the Trust changed. It became aggressive, less compliant, less, well, reasonable. Chris gave the Trust an impetus that was missing. Every public utterance from the administrators was pulled apart; nothing they did was left alone. Everything was questioned. The Trust started setting the agenda, online, in print and in the broadcast media. I firmly believe that eventually, Guilfoyle and co were running scared of Chris.

For a short time, I was on the Trust Board with him. I had to stand down because of some very personal problems I was having (not, As IJN has tried to imply, because I couldn't deal with the time pressures involved). Whilst on the Board I saw the enthusiasm and commitment Chris brought to the role. I also thought I saw the principles of the man.

Since Brent's takeover he's, in my view, played a blinder. He saw who the biggest pain-in-the-arse was, and could still potentially be. So he took the view expressed by Lyndon Johnson about J Edgar Hoover - Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

It's the oldest trick in the book - emasculate an opponent by offering them something to bring them over to your side of the fence. And Chris has fallen for it. Cheerio Supporter's representative, hello El Presidente. Sad to see, and it's made me doubt my judgement of people, as I never saw him selling out like he has - maybe that's why I'm so hard on him now.

So from 'unleashing the dogs' on previous Directors, Chris has elected to let the new owner tickle his tummy, throw him the odd scrap, and basically ensure that a fiery campaigner for the supporters is now little more than a management lackey. Unusual for a Union full-timer, obviously. His principles have all but gone, sacrificed for a AAA pass to Home Park and a page on the website.

At least with the GAS Board we have the opportunity to try and replace the vacuum that has been created by the abandonment of Chris's principles with a few good people getting the nod to scrutinise the Board on our behalf. It's not perfect, but it will allow for people who won't be bought to step forward. It's important that happens because, as sure as night follows day, there will come a point when Brent and his Board do something that the fans will get up in arms about. It always happens - Think back over the last 25 years of PAFC, every Chairman has ended their tenure being hated by the fans. And most started out being lauded as 'saviours' or people to trust'.

So, Chris, now you've read this, you know why I'm so down on you now. You could have continued as a superb fan's representative. You chose to abandon everything that had given you the profile you had, and while you may think you're popular amongst large sections of the fanbase now, it's my judgement that it won't last. Had you remained 'one of us' I believe you'd be even more popular now than you currently are - and it would have been a popularity that would have lasted.

One last request of Chris Webb: If you want to reply, don't send nasty little messages on Twitter, don't say you're going to phone me, have the courtesy and courage to put your rebuttal on here for everyone to see.

The above two posts (T shirt and Andy Symons) is why I love this site and think that it has a future. It reminds me of ROTG with the humour (the T shirt is brilliant satire) and the postings of Jock and Andy are more in line with my way of thinking that you don't need to blindly follow the party line and the need for transparency and debate around a big business like Argyle are so obvious it shouldn't need to be discussed even. You may not agree with Jock, Andy or Chris but the opinions are what make a trip to the pub, sat around a table having a meal or passing the time on a long journey with a mate worthwhile, long may it continue.

Absolutely in agreement with this. I have nothing personally against Chris, and admired him for what he did last year, but it all seems such a long time ago now. It's like finding out your hero has a murky past, or like Ryan Giggs not being the role model he came across as for so many years.

Are you standing, Andy?

knecht wrote:

Are you standing, Andy?

I'll answer that when I know what it is we're meant to be standing for. At the moment there's no information about what's involved, what the committee's terms of reference are, its powers, or even how long each rep's term of office is.

Thankfully the personal problems I alluded to in my post above are coming to an end, so that's one issue that won't stop me, and time isn't a factor either.

Sorry I can't give you a straight yes or no, but as it stands I don't see how anyone can commit til they know what they're committing to.

A very good post that Andy, and you are now neck and neck with John B in my backing.

Excellent posts - both of them!

One more thought on the whole GAS Board thing.

There seems to be a narrow view both on here and on PASOTI that the election will be played out online, with only known online names and faces in the running. If, as has been mooted, the vote will be amongst people who turn up to a specific match, then thats a constituency of around 6,000 people. The combined total of regular posters on both sites can only be 3-400 at a guess. Any candidate who thinks that either website is going to be a major influence is deluding themselves. Potential Fans reps need to reach out to the ordinary 5500 who just turn up to watch football. Us internet obsessives aren't as important as we'd like to believe.

Some cracking comments on here by you fellas that sum up my feelings perfectly, I need to say nothing more!

Andy_Symons wrote:

One more thought on the whole GAS Board thing.

There seems to be a narrow view both on here and on PASOTI that the election will be played out online, with only known online names and faces in the running. If, as has been mooted, the vote will be amongst people who turn up to a specific match, then thats a constituency of around 6,000 people. The combined total of regular posters on both sites can only be 3-400 at a guess. Any candidate who thinks that either website is going to be a major influence is deluding themselves. Potential Fans reps need to reach out to the ordinary 5500 who just turn up to watch football. Us internet obsessives aren't as important as we'd like to believe.

A brilliant post, and in my opinion highlights why the current Fans Trust is such a shambles, it is an organisation that has mad eno attempt to reach out beyond the internet. Hopefully the GAS board will appeal to normal fans and not just us internet geeks.

Womble wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

One more thought on the whole GAS Board thing.

There seems to be a narrow view both on here and on PASOTI that the election will be played out online, with only known online names and faces in the running. If, as has been mooted, the vote will be amongst people who turn up to a specific match, then thats a constituency of around 6,000 people. The combined total of regular posters on both sites can only be 3-400 at a guess. Any candidate who thinks that either website is going to be a major influence is deluding themselves. Potential Fans reps need to reach out to the ordinary 5500 who just turn up to watch football. Us internet obsessives aren't as important as we'd like to believe.

A brilliant post, and in my opinion highlights why the current Fans Trust is such a shambles, it is an organisation that has mad eno attempt to reach out beyond the internet. Hopefully the GAS board will appeal to normal fans and not just us internet geeks.

Nonsense.

The Trust is available to everyone outside the Devonport at every home game - look for the big white Gazebo with 'Argyle Fans Trust' on it.

With every comment I read from those involved with the Trust, inc. those standing, my faith gains strength that the Trust is the only sensible organisation worth following. I will never agree 100% with anyone's and everyone's views, but what I read makes me pretty well aligned enough to support the Trust strongly.

A very good post from Andy, but don't expect a reply from Webb. He doesn't like difficult debate, only debate where everyone's agreeing with him. If there are any comments it'll be to accuse you of 'sniping'.

On that point, Grovehill posted a very reasonable comment about the update and was immediately put down by Webb, Newell and a few others

Any form of dissent really will not be tolerated.

The gazebo is new and welcome. I believe those currently standing - or at least some of them - have said that, because much of the last year and the interim period when so many stood down was either taken up by other things and then simply getting through until the elections, it made sense to largely tread water until a full and active board was in place. There are plans for after the election. Those plans apparently include joining with other trusts around the country as well as developing contact with fans other than in Internetland.

I shall be interested if the GTs actually do become a legal company. I will also be interested how TonyC's (TonyH's?) bid to lead a STH group takes off. I think I read somewhere that it was reminiscent of the Rate-payer's Alliance? I don't think there is anything devious behind his moves in terms of him being the front for a behind the scenes group plot. My guess is that he has acted alone. But he has long been so much against the Trust and what it seems to stand for that he has chosen his moment to challenge it. It just seems so potentially destructive.

Tony's hat is meant to be destructive toward the Trust. Tony has never ever thought anything worthwhile has ever come from communal decision making.
We're talking a dinosaur here.
And a 'season ticket holders' alliance is in direct competition with a Trust and right up Mr Newell's street, that other well known self confesed "middle of the roader"

I think some of the others jumping on the band-wagon and throwing wood on the fire (got to give it to me for a wonderful mixing of metaphors) actually are playing silly buggers with it.

I've just returned home from the Senior Greens meeting where James Brent was, as per usual, an engaging and entertaining speaker. The membership of this club, which used to be a haven for having an afternoon off from 'jobs around the house' or shopping, a place to have a chat and a cup of tea, has recently had its ranks swollen by a couple of younger members - El Prez and sidekick, Is nowhere safe from this pair.

I was also disturbed to hear from JB's mouth that El Prez will be making the arrangements for and overseeing the GASBoard election - as it had to be seen as a separate entity from the club itself. But how is the President of the club (even though he has graciously turned down the parking space he was entitled to) not representing the club. Especially as he is taking every opportunity to criticise the Trust and even loudly endorsing one of the possible candidates.

James Brent is keen to strengthen the links between the club and the university. Why not let the business school run the election so it can be seen as a truly independent and democratically run event.

Thanks for the update Dingle, very useful. As I said yesterday I had no doubt The Pres would have his hands all over the GASboard election. I'm sure even if he doesn't sit in on it's meetings he will be the conduit to the club. Disappointing.

Dingle wrote:

James Brent is keen to strengthen the links between the club and the university. Why not let the business school run the election so it can be seen as a truly independent and democratically run event.

What an excellent suggestion Dingle.
Unfortunately, as Andy Symons, Peggy and others have aluded to, the idea of fans representation is being dominated by a strange set up to begin with with when you have a Trust already up .... and a guy who's big Brunnel hat is pressing down over his ears, and listens to noone, just looks for approval.
It's bitter sweet, and like something out of Blackadder, but nothing I haven't seen a hundred times before.

Dingle wrote:

I've just returned home from the Senior Greens meeting where James Brent was, as per usual, an engaging and entertaining speaker. The membership of this club, which used to be a haven for having an afternoon off from 'jobs around the house' or shopping, a place to have a chat and a cup of tea, has recently had its ranks swollen by a couple of younger members - El Prez and sidekick, Is nowhere safe from this pair.

I was also disturbed to hear from JB's mouth that El Prez will be making the arrangements for and overseeing the GASBoard election - as it had to be seen as a separate entity from the club itself. But how is the President of the club (even though he has graciously turned down the parking space he was entitled to) not representing the club. Especially as he is taking every opportunity to criticise the Trust and even loudly endorsing one of the possible candidates.

James Brent is keen to strengthen the links between the club and the university. Why not let the business school run the election so it can be seen as a truly independent and democratically run event.

That is absolutely scandalous.

So where as we once had hoped that the Trust represent the broad sweep of the support via a democratic process instilled through a written constitution, they have now been superceded by a Supervisory board, the elections being run by someone who has an official role within the club. This has gone way too far, I am sick of seeing that mans, ovular head all over the place!

penzancepirate wrote:

Dingle wrote:

James Brent is keen to strengthen the links between the club and the university. Why not let the business school run the election so it can be seen as a truly independent and democratically run event.

What an excellent suggestion Dingle.
Unfortunately, as Andy Symons, Peggy and others have aluded to, the idea of fans representation is being dominated by a strange set up to begin with with when you have a Trust already up .... and a guy who like the big hat and listens to no one. it's quite distateful, but nothing I haven't seen a hundred times before.

Brent's 'engagement' with the fans always seems to be with the Chuckle Brothers in attendance, no doubt scanning the audience for dissenting voices who they can put down with their witty repartee.

Now, if a few of us could speak with him without anyone else around....hmmmm....

Hmmmmm.

Would it be a smart move for the Trust to politely decline its one seat on the GAS board and instead throw its energies behind keeping the club honest and transparent? If the GASB is going to be the mechanism for supporters' views to be represented to the club, isn't the Trust better off doing other things? Like being a watchdog?

a39er wrote:

Hmmmmm.

Would it be a smart move for the Trust to politely decline its one seat on the GAS board and instead throw its energies behind keeping the club honest and transparent?

Another excellent thought that. And if not, perhaps all Trust candidates should stand for the GASBoard as a Trust representative first and foremost... and block vote. I would imagine anyone standing with the blessing of the Trust would gain an advantage.