The First Meeting to Discuss The GAS Board

Coxside_Green wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

Really?

As far as I'm aware Andy done his bit until personal problems took control, nobody deserves to be slated for that!

For Graham, somebody who is nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst, somebody who stood down from the Trust chair without explanation, somebody who claims he has no interest in holding any future position, to snipe at a meaningful meeting...

CG
My reasons for standing down were well publicised at the time. The demands of my job had increased and it became impossible to combine them with my role as Chair particularly as I rarely had day time access to e mails which were the essential tool of communication

You can rest assured that I will enjoy my time sitting in the Lyndhurst and no more

Graham Clark wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

Really?

As far as I'm aware Andy done his bit until personal problems took control, nobody deserves to be slated for that!

For Graham, somebody who is nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst, somebody who stood down from the Trust chair without explanation, somebody who claims he has no interest in holding any future position, to snipe at a meaningful meeting...

CG
My reasons for standing down were well publicised at the time. The demands of my job had increased and it became impossible to combine them with my role as Chair particularly as I rarely had day time access to e mails which were the essential tool of communication

You can rest assured that I will enjoy my time sitting in the Lyndhurst and no more

I'm happy you'll remain being a fan in the Lyndhurst, you're more than welcome.

I'll always say your decision to snipe at an important meeting, a meeting I believe you shouldn't even have attended, was appalling.

Hopefully you'll see fit to make a public apology and we can all move forward, with knowledge.

edit to add - Apologies Andy, you're probably cringing, I dont blame you.

All I want is the best available for my club. I know it isn't me, it would appear it isn't Graham either.

Graham Clark wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

Really?

As far as I'm aware Andy done his bit until personal problems took control, nobody deserves to be slated for that!

For Graham, somebody who is nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst, somebody who stood down from the Trust chair without explanation, somebody who claims he has no interest in holding any future position, to snipe at a meaningful meeting...

CG
My reasons for standing down were well publicised at the time. The demands of my job had increased and it became impossible to combine them with my role as Chair particularly as I rarely had day time access to e mails which were the essential tool of communication

You can rest assured that I will enjoy my time sitting in the Lyndhurst and no more

Once you've stuck your nose in to try and ensure that someone like Andy has no part in the GASB I take it? And why? Because he had opposing views to some on Pasoti so got the full treatment from Ian Newell, so he decided to post on ATD more and not on Pasoti.

You had your reasons for stepping down, as did Andy, but now Andy is willing to stake a claim for a position on Brents GAS Board, and help out manning the Trust booths on matchday, but isn't the sort of candidate who will roll over and accept everything without question, a bit like Chris Webb used to do, and therefore isn't the sort of candidate wanted in certain quarters now that Brent is the man. Funny how quickly time and opinions change.

Think the GAS board idea should be binned, too much hastle for no gain whatsoever.

I'd imagine that the importance of Graham's comment has been blown out of proportion.

I'd also imagine that GCFC's comment above is probably going to be correct.

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Having just read the above and some of my recent postings on the other site (under different user name) I'm beginning to wonder if I am just a troll/miserable old git?

A tad cynical like my good self but I think you are perfectly within your rights to be so inclined, considering how certain people try to ridicule and or silence non Pasoti approved thinking. I mean, they've got such a record of being astute visionaries, not small minded, anti inclusive, self promoting dictators.

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

I thought I'd add my thoughts to those already posted....

I found the meeting to be both interesting & varied, but must apologise for arriving slightly late & having to dash off at soon as it finished (I was in between meetings!).

As such, I came in mid-way through the Prof's (DW) introduction, however I understand that he was scene-setting & describing his role which was that of group facilitator.

Other posters have detailed the chronography of the meeting better than I would have done, so I'll just highlight of couple of areas that may be worth debating further.

Firstly, as I said during the meeting I think that we will need to take something of a leap of faith in starting up this Board - oh & it's the Green Army Supervisory Board for those of you unsure.  An important detail that I'll come back to.

I think that it would be useful to be clear that we (the holistic 'we', not the GASB meeting attendees) won't get everything right.  Also, one of the things that reading Pasoti, ATD, the Herald online, listening to Sparksy, etc, etc is that we will never be able to select a quorum of fans that will represent the thousands not sat around the table.

As such, I think that the purpose of the GASB as articulated by DW that the Board will 'give all Argyle fans a voice' needs tweaking as I don't think it's achievable. 

'To give every Argyle supporter the opportunity to have their voice heard' isn't very different, but I think the subtlety is an important one - one thats more honest.  That said, I still view this is a tactic, as methodology, rather than being this Board's high level purpose.

A number of principles for the GASB were then discussed.  Some; honesty, transparency & inclusivity feel right, but I spoke up against a proposal that this Board should be about uniting the disparate fanbase.  I don't think that this, as an aim, fits into the  intended role of this Board.

As part of this 'unity' discussion, the potential for the Trust to be the Board was talked about at some length.  This doesn't sit well with me, certainly not at this time - they are different organisations with different purposes.

The area that really surprised me is the significant variance in thinking re what the GASB is actually there to do.

For what it's worth, my view is that if it is a 'supervisory' board then it's role is to do with supervising some of the club's activity.  I don't think everyone agreed with this.

Indeed, linking the last two points together helps support my views.  As I said on Saturday, I presumed that this new Board would supervise decisions such as the selling of the 20% to the Trust.  There was audible disagreement from several people to my words.  A clear potential for a conflict in interest exists here - which of course is resolvable, but one that needs to be acknowledged first.

Several other people, Sir Gordon being one, talked passionately about their hopes that this Board will enable good two-way communication with fans as one of its main functions.  Well, I know I'm being a bit controversial here but I don't agree.  Yes, the GASB needs to its work examined in a transparent fashion, but it is not, in my view, here to be a spokesman for the club nor to provide a supporters view on everything, it's role I firmly believe, should be to examine the business side of Plymouth Argyle to ensure that the largely hidden debacle of the past regime is never repeated.

I also think that this is what James Brent wants the Board to be; indeed DW stated words to the effect that 'James wants this Board to be feisty & challenging....'.

Returning to the Board's principles, it was also largely agreed that the GASB needs to be accountable.

Again, lovely words, but by who & to whom?  I don't want to get into a 'who polices the police' sort of debate, but I think that the GASB is being set up to be the body that holds Plymouth Argyle to account, some we need to think through the detail of any promise of further accountability.  We don't want a Ministry of Bureaucracy.

Anyway, I've rambled on at length now so really should wrap up. The two big issues that we need to work on together as a priority are (as always in my opinion):

1.  What is the GASB here to do?  If it is first & foremost about undertaking supervisory activities, then every tactic, every piece of methodology & every principle needs to reflect this as its raison d'être.  If it isn't about supervising the performance of the club's main Board, then I really don't see any clear blue water between it & the Trust.

2. Who should be on the Board?  I think it was a great decision to ask representatives of different Fan's groups to be there on Saturday, but it was apparent to me that some didn't want to be there, some didn't understand why they had been asked to be there, & some saw it as an extension of other roles that they currently undertake.  For clarity, there's no criticism from me here re any of the above.  As an 'independent' (albeit as a season ticket holder, Trust member, Pasoti & ATD user and father of a young fan) I suspect that it will be difficult for me to attain a place on the GASB, which for me (if it does go on to play a scrutineering role) will be disappointing as I feel I could perform the role in a largely objective & independent manner.  We'll see though.

So, much to do & much to agree.  All in all though, surely it must be a huge improvement over the lat few years that we're even having this discussion.  We just need to keep our eye on the ball (a poor quasi-pun, I know) & make sure that the GASB ends up doing what we need it to do.

I really do think it's achievable, but as one last few words of caution, we do need to ensure that it doesn't become something of an academic social experiment.  This Board in itself is a tactic to achieve something good, it's not the outcome in itself & we will need to remember this at all times.



(a bit lazy i know, but I'll post this both on ATD & Pasoti, but will come back later tonight to try & add some bespoke bits to both......)

Jon

Thanks Jon. You certainly come across as the sort of person who should be part of this initiative, if it is going to have any realistic chance of being anything more than a talking shop, affording individuals perceived status within the club.
Inclusivity, and a true cross section of the club's support is vital. Otherwise the head nodders will reign supreme and the club will stagnate further.

Who has 'co-opted' themselves onto the board?

What board?

The biggest concern for me is the lack of varied demographics and genders on the board. Not wishing to offend anyone (well not a lot anyway ) but the views of a 70 year old retired gent living in Saltash will be very different to those of the younger members, and ultimately the future, of our fanbase

LondonGreen wrote:

The biggest concern for me is the lack of varied demographics and genders on the board. Not wishing to offend anyone (well not a lot anyway ) but the views of a 70 year old retired gent living in Saltash will be very different to those of the younger members, and ultimately the future, of our fanbase

That was one of the first things that was discussed. Unfortunately, I guess that the average 16-25 year old Argyle fan will look at the GAS Board and say to themselves that they'd rather be in the pub or the fanfest rather than sitting in the Chisholm Lounge discussing Corporate Governance with a bunch of dull middle-aged blokes. Likewise with the lack of female representation, the perception of the GAS Board as being an all-male domain may be what puts female supporters off. But input from both groups is needed.

Are ya finally getting gas down in that outback, congratulations... now let me tell you about something even more splendid, you may well get this soon too, it's called electricity, remember, you heard of it it here first, shhh

Sandford_Grecian wrote:

Are ya finally getting gas down in that outback, congratulations... now let me tell you about something even more splendid, you may well get this soon too, it's called electricity, remember, you heard of it it here first, shhh

Unless its sail or steam we dont wanna know.

Andy_Symons wrote:

David Wheeler gave an estimate that there were approximately 20,000 potential stakeholders, ie people who have an interest in Argyle, from the go-to-every-game-come-what-may supporter, through to those who may look out for Argyle's results and only attend Home Park once in a blue moon. It was also acknowledged that many supporters are, for reasons of geography, unable to attend HP. Those exiles also need to be considered when it comes to engaging with fans and holding the elections, something which I know concerned many people.

At £50 each would be a cool million per season.

I see all this as a prelude (in the end) to a German type club membership.

Members elect the Gas Board. Members have ticketing priority etc. Members pay (into the club coffers).

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

David Wheeler gave an estimate that there were approximately 20,000 potential stakeholders, ie people who have an interest in Argyle, from the go-to-every-game-come-what-may supporter, through to those who may look out for Argyle's results and only attend Home Park once in a blue moon. It was also acknowledged that many supporters are, for reasons of geography, unable to attend HP. Those exiles also need to be considered when it comes to engaging with fans and holding the elections, something which I know concerned many people.

At £50 each would be a cool million per season.

I see all this as a prelude (in the end) to a German type club membership.

Members elect the Gas Board. Members have ticketing priority etc. Members pay (into the club coffers).

We had 35 k at Wembley.

In reply to JonB.

Unless you employ a full time Accountant and a Private Detective, it's impossible for an outsider to "keep an eye" on what the Board does. You've not going to have access to Board Meetings (you definitely won't get access to the meetings where things are REALLY decided) and will just be fed the drips of information that the owner wants you (GAS board) to have. Remember, it's not so long ago that PAFC had a Board who's individual members didn't really understand what was going on.

If the Gas Board had been in place three months ago, do you really think the club would have bowed to public pressure and either have sacked the Manager or started paying transfer fees for players to improve the team?


I think the thing to avoid is that the GAS Board lives up to its name and just becomes a talking shop for "the usual suspects" to believe they actually have a say in the running of the club, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Nope.

He's the Honorary President. an unpaid role with no specific description and no seat on the board.

And that is only one person. Who is the other?

I thought Peggy was considering standing?

I still want to know the difference between the GASB and the Trust. Meetings soon will make this clearer - I need to be patient.

In reply to CWFC, if the Trust take up the 20% offer then that would provide more of an inside understanding. Whether they are then able to take advantage of that is another question. Equally of interest - other than Mr Brent, no other member of the present board are investors. It was said that these would be sought - that would add an interesting dynamic.

Well the first thing the GASB can supervise is the updating of the 'Directors' page on the Official Site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Somethings just never change at PAFC....

So can somebody please list the directors and their CV's please.

I just can't see the point of this GASB?
As for a conduit to express the wishes of the fans - the time honoured traditions that fans have always used will do the job for me.

And as for the GASB 'supervising' and reporting back? Supervising and reporting back on what? And what difference will it make? The directors don't own any of the club anyway - Brent owns the whole enchilada!

What's he going to do, undermine one of his own boards decisions and make them do what the fans want?

Who honestly thinks Brent is going to take notice of a fans 'supervisory' board if he doesn't agree with its recommendations?

The Trust should go it alone.

This is the local press report on the new board. (Easy to look up - I shan't do this for you again - ).

Andy_Symons wrote:

Look at it with an open mind. It could, of course go completely tits-up, as could any new innovation. It could also turn out to be unique, positive and ground breaking. Only time will tell.

Looking on Tony, I see the aptly named Cholwell also used the word 'innovation' when describing what the GAS Board could be.

"It can be a radical, innovative mechanism to inspire a Club, City and Region"

Was it a word used in the meeting perchance? I'm not sure anything mooted about it thus far can be labelled as being particularly innovative? And I much prefer using the word in hindsight rather than as selling point!

It's already happening - the arguments over what it should be, who should be on it etc etc. 'Sniping from the sidelines' - have to say I was surprised at that comment, and from it's source.

Anyway, no-one has yet explained why the Trust can't be the body that represents the fans. Surely, it has to be more representative that this hotch potch of so-called groups.

Perhaps that's why the new owner doesn't want to be dealing with it?

Santabarbara wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

Nope.

He's the Honorary President. an unpaid role with no specific description and no seat on the board.

And that is only one person. Who is the other?

What is he actually doing then ?? Unpaid role with no description and no place on the board ??

Just decoration until James Brent wields the axe at the end of the season ??

As I understand it the President's being paid what he's worth.

JonB has nailed it for me. Other making sure that Admin Mk II doesn't happen and how the heck are they going to get the info they need to do that I don't see the point. At the point they start yacking about pasties or the price of tickets I'll know it's worthless.

Why does there need a Gasboard to advice the Board of All the Talents that JB has assembled. The analogy that the Tony Hooper fella raised about the GasBoard being akin in its dealing to a Council fills me with dread. I can barely think of an enlightened council of any political hue anywhere in the country. Most are parochial at best.

The little slur and dig at the opening meeting (notwithstanding the apology) was a case of 'getting your kicks in early' Bremner Chopper Harris and Tommy Smith would have been proud. The Presidents (does he ever say no to something) involvement after he said he wouldn't be is unnecessary surely David Wheeler is an expert at dealing with all aspects of community engagement and doesn't need a minder.

I'm glad the Andy is interested and wish that Peggy could find the time.

Finally Gob continues to plow a lonely furrow on Pasoti where odious is becoming the new freak and weirdo.