The Second GAS Board get-together

Good work from The Trust

Don't understand why The President isn't all over the this situation though. I would have thought delays like this would really get on his goat. Have the dogs been neutered? Is the position becoming more ceremonial and a mouthpiece for the club.

Either way I think he needs to stand aside from any involvement in the gasboard.

This gasboard thing is all hot air. There is a readymade vehicle in place in the trust that could fulfill the role without too much fuss. Unfortunately the trust isn't held in such high regard these days by people who became famous through being part of it.

Heads have been turned and there are now more important places up for grabs. Long after James Brent is gone there will be a Plymouth Argyle in some capacity, whether that will amount to much once the meat has been picked from the bones, but I doubt the club will ever have such an important president under a future owner.

I'm not sure that it was intended as a PR exercise Gob, indeed if it had been I would've thought it would have been handled differently.

Maybe, given the journey to date & the reaction over the last couple of days, the Trust should now be asked to assist in taking the lead in setting up the GAS Board, with non- Trust members being co-opted / voted on as the perceived need requires.

Jon

I see no reason why the Trust would need to set up a GAS Board Jon when we already have the Trust that represents us fans, it's the club remit, not the Trust and the club should be dealing with it. Of course, that's if the club is serious about it and so far to me all the indications are that it's not or at the very least, it's to incompetent to organise it.

I think we would all agree that we would not want the Trust to rush into anything. If Brent is serious then I'm sure he would understand and encourage the Trust to take its time as any fan would.

In all my frustration about the lack of information and so on, I too was not advocating any rush. The concern is complete lack of action, not that the action's moving too slowly. If it's going to be done at all, it's not something that can or should be done in the kneejerk, piecemeal fashion we've seen up to now.

Excellent work from the Trust. As ever

Echo the above-good work by the Trust (as ever)- wonder if it will have any bearing on Saturday's meeting? or will the attendees be rail-roaded into forming an interim gasboard?

To form a GAS Board before consultation is carried out would be unwise. Saturday's meeting should, at least, agree to obtain/report on/summarise:

a) The views and self-perceived roles/position statements of all supporter groups.
b) The views of SD and similar bodies. SD should be interested if the GASB model is to be applied to other clubs and sports. They have relevant expertise here.
c) The content of the Parliamentary Committee reports on football governance, being worked into Bills as we speak. The Trust already engaged Alison Seabeck with this.
d) Research on what differences there are in the German model and what is good and bad to take from that (Brent won't want his GASB firing him, for example)
e) Information on what the club's corporate governance regime is, and how a GASB would interwork with that.

This would really help inform the subsequent discussion. The Trust could potentially assist with (b), (c), (d). The prof needs to do (a), and the club needs to provide (e).

Tim

Peggy wrote:

In all my frustration about the lack of information and so on, I too was not advocating any rush. The concern is complete lack of action, not that the action's moving too slowly. If it's going to be done at all, it's not something that can or should be done in the kneejerk, piecemeal fashion we've seen up to now.

Excellent work from the Trust. As ever

I wasn't for a minute suggesting that you were Peggy but I know one or two others would see the Trust dive in without hardly any knowledge of the deal or consideration. Such pressures could only be considered as amateurish, we've seen enough of that at HP but I'm confident that the Trust leaders are now professional enough to see right through any potential hazards.

Chemical Ali wrote:

Echo the above-good work by the Trust (as ever)- wonder if it will have any bearing on Saturday's meeting? or will the attendees be rail-roaded into forming an interim gasboard?

We would strongly object to any rail roading.

I don't think there will be - it would be something of a paradox, given the self-managed aspirations of the people wanting to develop the Board.

Jon

Just for information, and in the interests of clarity and transparency, below is a copy of the email I've sent to Chris this morning, setting out my (personal) thoughts about the election and composition of the GAS Board:


Hi Chris,

Here's a few things that may be worth considering for tomorrow's GAS Board Meeting:

The Board

7 has been the suggested number for the Board; broadly speaking this seems to be a manageable number, but I do think the Board should be in a position to co-opt people who have specific skills or abilities which may be relevant to items being discussed or analysed (to gain legal opinion, financial opinion, etc).

How the 7 Board members are elected may well be a major bone of contention. It's my view that all 7 should be elected by the fanbase as a whole. This gives the whole Board a democratic legitimacy that may be missing if Supporters Associations nominate 'from within'. Should that happen, you may be in a situation that the largest supporters' association has the representatives on the Board, effectively disenfranchising smaller groups. My suggestion is that 3 of the seats on the Board are filled by candidates nominated by Supporters Groups and the Trust, but voted upon by the whole fanbase. That will give all Branches the opportunity to put forward their own candidates and state their case, and will give all fans the opportunity to decide upon the relative merits of what each group has to say, rather than the Supporters' groups representatives being appointed by the bigger, more powerful groups.

Individual candidates should be required to get nominations and supporting nominations from other supporters in order to be eligible to stand. In Local Authority elections in Plymouth, a candidate must be nominated, seconded, and provide 8 supporting nominations (ie get the backing of 10 people in total) to be eligible for inclusion on the ballot. The average council ward in Plymouth contains about 6,000 voters; roughly the same number as an Argyle home crowd this season; therefore on that basis I would suggest adopting a similar approach to nominations and candidature as in a Local Authority election. Besides which, if someone is seeking to become a representative of the Green Army, then the support of 10 people in nominating them should not be considered an obstacle. It would also indicate the seriousness of an individual candidate. To be blunt, anyone with even the most minor axe to grind could turn to the two people who sit on either side of them at Home Park and get proposers and seconders. It's my view that only those truly serious about standing would go to the trouble of securing 10 names on a nomination form. It would also avoid the need to print a ballot paper that's as long as Union Street.

Eligibility to Stand

This should be quite an easy one. Anyone who can demonstrate an attachment to, and support for PAFC should be eligible. We really should be giving the widest possible cross-section of the fanbase the opportunity to stand.

The Election

Firstly, an electoral roll needs to be established. Utilise the Trust booths between now and the end of the season to set up a 'voters' roll' also publicise the elections in the local media - as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote for the Board to be truly representative and democratic. It's a big task, and should not be rushed. People should also be able to register on the official website, and in person in either Reception or the Club shop. A closing date for registering to vote should be given, with nominations and elections held within a reasonable period of time after the voter registration period has finished.

Campaigning and Hustings

All candidates should produce an 'election address' which should be sent to all registered voters; hustings should be held so candidates can be questioned and given the opportunity to state their case in person.

Conclusion

For the GAS Board to work properly it will take a huge amount of organisation and commitment. As as already been demonstrated, this is too big a task to leave to just one or two people. It needs to be publicised far more widely and effectively than has currently happened. Posters and information around the concourses at the ground. Tannoy announcements; a leaflet to everyone entering the ground (it was done when racism needed addressing, so it can be done here); a piece in the programme; better use of the local media.

For this to work it needs to become a venture that is embraced by the whole of the Green Army. At present it is the plaything of a few internet-based supporters who I refer to as 'the usual suspects' (I include myself in that description). Without far wider participation and a truly democratic mandate it will never become anything more than that.

************************************************************************


There you go, Chris. A few points for debate and discussion. Hope that helps. See you at the meeting.

Regards,

Andy


(Edited to remove some of the stars which were making the page so wide. Peggy)

Another wonderfully constructive contribution. Well done, Greenman. As for insulting The Supreme Leader, he can take it. He's pretty good at dishing it out, too.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Just for information, and in the interests of clarity and transparency, below is a copy of the email I've sent to Chris this morning, setting out my (personal) thoughts about the election and composition of the GAS Board:


Hi Chris,

Here's a few things that may be worth considering for tomorrow's GAS Board Meeting:

The Board

7 has been the suggested number for the Board; broadly speaking this seems to be a manageable number, but I do think the Board should be in a position to co-opt people who have specific skills or abilities which may be relevant to items being discussed or analysed (to gain legal opinion, financial opinion, etc).

How the 7 Board members are elected may well be a major bone of contention. It's my view that all 7 should be elected by the fanbase as a whole. This gives the whole Board a democratic legitimacy that may be missing if Supporters Associations nominate 'from within'. Should that happen, you may be in a situation that the largest supporters' association has the representatives on the Board, effectively disenfranchising smaller groups. My suggestion is that 3 of the seats on the Board are filled by candidates nominated by Supporters Groups and the Trust, but voted upon by the whole fanbase. That will give all Branches the opportunity to put forward their own candidates and state their case, and will give all fans the opportunity to decide upon the relative merits of what each group has to say, rather than the Supporters' groups representatives being appointed by the bigger, more powerful groups.

Individual candidates should be required to get nominations and supporting nominations from other supporters in order to be eligible to stand. In Local Authority elections in Plymouth, a candidate must be nominated, seconded, and provide 8 supporting nominations (ie get the backing of 10 people in total) to be eligible for inclusion on the ballot. The average council ward in Plymouth contains about 6,000 voters; roughly the same number as an Argyle home crowd this season; therefore on that basis I would suggest adopting a similar approach to nominations and candidature as in a Local Authority election. Besides which, if someone is seeking to become a representative of the Green Army, then the support of 10 people in nominating them should not be considered an obstacle. It would also indicate the seriousness of an individual candidate. To be blunt, anyone with even the most minor axe to grind could turn to the two people who sit on either side of them at Home Park and get proposers and seconders. It's my view that only those truly serious about standing would go to the trouble of securing 10 names on a nomination form. It would also avoid the need to print a ballot paper that's as long as Union Street.



Eligibility to Stand

This should be quite an easy one. Anyone who can demonstrate an attachment to, and support for PAFC should be eligible. We really should be giving the widest possible cross-section of the fanbase the opportunity to stand.

The Election

Firstly, an electoral roll needs to be established. Utilise the Trust booths between now and the end of the season to set up a 'voters' roll' also publicise the elections in the local media - as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote for the Board to be truly representative and democratic. It's a big task, and should not be rushed. People should also be able to register on the official website, and in person in either Reception or the Club shop. A closing date for registering to vote should be given, with nominations and elections held within a reasonable period of time after the voter registration period has finished.

Campaigning and Hustings

All candidates should produce an 'election address' which should be sent to all registered voters; hustings should be held so candidates can be questioned and given the opportunity to state their case in person.

Conclusion

For the GAS Board to work properly it will take a huge amount of organisation and commitment. As as already been demonstrated, this is too big a task to leave to just one or two people. It needs to be publicised far more widely and effectively than has currently happened. Posters and information around the concourses at the ground. Tannoy announcements; a leaflet to everyone entering the ground (it was done when racism needed addressing, so it can be done here); a piece in the programme; better use of the local media.

For this to work it needs to become a venture that is embraced by the whole of the Green Army. At present it is the plaything of a few internet-based supporters who I refer to as 'the usual suspects' (I include myself in that description). Without far wider participation and a truly democratic mandate it will never become anything more than that.

***********************************************************************************************************************************


There you go, Chris. A few points for debate and discussion. Hope that helps. See you at the meeting.

Regards,

Andy

I agree with all of that Andy with the possible exception of extending the numbers to a maximum of 10 to allow the opportunity for the broader inclusion for representation of women, juniors and the disabled. The club already has a large database of all those who have bought a ticket at Argyle although I understand there are some difficulties in accessing the full extent of it. But this combined with the opportunity to register to vote by post should be enough to include the non-internet users and exiles in the process thereby offering as wide a constituency as possible

Greenman wrote:

How two faced! One minute you are insulting the president, the next it's "Hi Chris".

As you're being so consistent so will I. Wanker

Greenjock wrote:

Greenman wrote:

How two faced! One minute you are insulting the president, the next it's "Hi Chris".

As you're being so consistent so will I. Wanker

Don't ever change

Rickler wrote:

GOB wrote:

I think a big feature should be put in the Herald. I feel the process is by passing potentially excellent candidates by not making use of this outlet.

Wasn't that promised or at least used as the reason for the cancellation of the last meeting?

Ok... So what has exactly happened to 'reach out' since the last presidential report?

Do I have to PM you Prez to get an answer - if i do, please PM me!!!

I think the excuse it will be going in the Herald a few days before the meeting so as to be fresh in the memory of those thinking of going, is a pretty weak one if it gets trotted out.

Surely the Herald can do more than one 'piece' in the coming weeks?

Well, well, well...

So what did happen to reach out to woman and youth in the last two weeks? Apparantly nothing! Despite good suggestions from Andy Symons and myself.

Did anyone make any effort at all to reach out to woman and youth groups in the area?

As predicted... It will get a mention in the papers the day of the event!

That gives any interested women or youth just a few hours to rearrange their day, and to collect and collate any thought or proposals they might have before getting themselves off to Home Park!

What a complete and utter farce!

Greenman wrote:

How two faced! One minute you are insulting the president, the next it's "Hi Chris".

I stand corrected.
It appears that volunteers have appeared out of thin air and will be at the meeting!

Mr. President, how were they recruited?

It seems the meeting is now closed to any newcomers. This has pissed Miles Bidgood off.

Bad luck Ian Newell, eh?

PS Can anybody point me to articles about the GasB on the official site - not the "Presidential progress" stuff, but dedicated articles?

Shambles.

Predictable