The second GAS Board

Only the briefest of comments, with more detail to follow, but a couple or so salient points:

All of the concerns that have been raised online were discussed in some depth at this meeting.

This meeting was typified by a strong degree of honesty & openness with conflicting opinions & disagreements raised & discussed appropriately.

The next GAS Board meeting on the 21st April will see a number of proposals 'crystallised' by David Wheeler - these can then be discussed & the taken away for delegates to consult as appropriate with whatever body they represent.

The following meeting - on the 5th May - should then see agreement as to the function & formation of the Board.


There were also a few ancillary points of interest raised:

Season ticket details for next year will be published soon

We will be reintroducing a tiered membership scheme (Gold, Silver & Bronze).

I'm just typing on the hoof, so more detail will undoubtedly follow.

Jon

Thanks Jon. The return of tiered membership is long overdue. I'm still not sold on the whole GAS Board thing but we'll see where it goes I guess.

Thanks Jon

I'm sure the two things you pointed out about early season ticket sales and tiered membership are the sort of issues that come out of John Lloyds annual fan survey. So I'm just hoping that the GASboard raises itself above the mundane and somewhat obvious.

Please please get them to change the name asap.

Dougie wrote:

Thanks Jon

I'm sure the two things you pointed out about early season ticket sales and tiered membership are the sort of issues that come out of John Lloyds annual fan survey. So I'm just hoping that the GASboard raises itself above the mundane and somewhat obvious.

Please please get them to change the name asap.

Funnily enough Dougie, both of your points loomed large today - the issue of the quality of mathday pasties was used as a benchmark - is this something of an irrelevance to a 'supervisory' function or is it something that should be catered for (see what I did there?)? Of course, this question also leads on to the debate about where the Trust ends & the Board starts....

As for the name, many present expressed concerns over the jokey nature of it - I suspect it will be changed when the ether clears.

Jon

Some notes, some of which may overlap Jon's, apologies.

There were about 15 people present, including one woman, but no younger supporters. Jon was the best dressed again! There were quite a few empty seats, and a few people who attended the previous meeting were not there today, but also some new people present including John Petrie.

It was good to hear that Prof Wheeler will be consulting with organised supporter groups in the next week or so; he believes there's 8-10 of these. There were about four or five submissions of proposals/ideas made via Chris, I think all by individuals, including Andy Symons, Tony C and John Petrie.

The Prof will write up a number of different options/proposals for the GASB by 21st April (Oxford home), and present these at a meeting to be held somewhere in the city from 10am-noon. It wasn't clear who will be invited.

I'm sure initially the Prof said a single proposal would be picked on the 21st, but later he said that the supporter groups (or anyone else) can take the proposals from that day back to their memberships for discussion, with the final choice being made on 5th May (Cheltenham home). I would assume they'll all be made available via various channels.

The general thrust of the discussion was around the GASB purpose. Quite a few people expressed concern with the overlap between the GASB and Trust, if the GASB purpose was to be "a strong supporters' voice" with a wide brief. The meeting debated this for a while and seemed to reach a consensus that the GASB should be focused on the scrutiny function, and both Peter Ryan and Tony C had good phrases to describe that (which I didn't note down, but I think I saw the Prof did).

There was some discussion about elections, and whether all candidates should be put forward for an open vote, or whether (for example) the Trust might be guaranteed 2 spots, other groups 1 spot, and the rest a free vote. I don't think any conclusion was reached there. Personally I think nailing down the high-level purpose comes first.

Chris told us that the club is bringing back a three-tier membership, with Gold, then Silver for 6 homes, and Bronze for exiles. These would give the GASB a natural electoral roll.

Andy Symons raised the issue of reaching "offline" supporters, and suggested the club could have leafleted to call for inputs just as it leafleted for the racism issue.

It was a good meeting in that people expressed some good, honest opinions, and there was a good natured debate/discussion.

Your point about the number of people present was a relevant one, particularly since I understand that some people were told that the meeting was fully subscribed in terms of numbers attending - there were 15 in the room, and spare seating for at least another 10 people, in comfort. My guess is that John Petrie was the youngest attendee, there was one female in attendance (and I must apologise here, I didn't catch her name) but yet again it was basically a gathering of 'the usual suspects'. My suggestion of leafletting was initially dismissed by one or two - the thrust of their argument being that we couldn't have a meeting with open attendance - until I pointed out that people didn't need to attend in order to contribute ; a leaflet giving various methods of contact (email, phone, a contact at the club to write to) would have enabled a far wider consultation and engagement.

It did strike me that some at the meeting were intent upon maintaining and protecting their 'position'. I suggested that each supporters branch should be able to nominate one of their members, with those nominated being elected by the entire 'electoral roll', my reasoning being that if the branches just nominated to fill the positions available, the larger supporters branches may dominate proceedings and only elect their own people. This suggestion was not well received by the representative of one of the largest supporters branches.

My initial feeling as I left the meeting was that not much progress had been made. However on reflection it does seem that the next meeting, on the 21st, will be the one where all the discussions are brought together and a substantive proposal is agreed upon. Hopefully the final suggestions as to the Board's remit and composition will be based upon the substance of discussions held both in these meetings and elsewhere, with alternatives available for discussion. What I don't want to see is one proposal being presented. There are a number of ways that the Board may be established, and they should all be given a fair hearing.

Andy_Symons wrote:

This suggestion was not well received by the representative of one of the largest supporters branches.

Thanks for the info, Andy.

Although I have to say... This above quote bothers me. Why don't you just give us the name and the group he is representing?

So, was any reason given for why the 'women and youth' didn't attend, or was the GasB just stood up? How were they recruited in the first place? However it was done was an 'epic fail!' Whatever appeared in the Saturday local papers clearly was a flop - what did appear?

It is now obvious to me though, that good suggestions such as you and I have made, are just being delibrately ignored. Did you ask why?

And what was decided about this issue? Just plough on anyway?

I have to admit I have read much of what has been posted here and on Pasoti about these GasB meetings and I am left dizzy by it all.

A couple of questions (open to anyone who attended) if you don't mind....

Were attendees at the meeting given any paperwork from Wheeler or El Pres regarding the Gasb?
Are those at the meeting able to contact David Wheeler directly? If not, who do you go through - El Prez?
Who was at the latest meeting?
Were any ideas or thoughts from people not at the meeting read out or discussed?

Thanks.

Additional Questions

Who wasn't there from the 1st meeting?

What does 'Convergence mode' mean? Can't all this business speak be dropped its offputting and unnecessary

Rickler wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

This suggestion was not well received by the representative of one of the largest supporters branches.

Thanks for the info, Andy.

Although I have to say... This above quote bothers me. Why don't you just give us the name and the group he is representing?

So, was any reason given for why the 'women and youth' didn't attend, or was the GasB just stood up? How were they recruited in the first place? However it was done was an 'epic fail!' Whatever appeared in the Saturday local papers clearly was a flop - what did appear?

It is now obvious to me though, that good suggestions such as you and I have made, are just being delibrately ignored. Did you ask why?

And what was decided about this issue? Just plough on anyway?

I have to admit I have read much of what has been posted here and on Pasoti about these GasB meetings and I am left dizzy by it all.

A couple of questions (open to anyone who attended) if you don't mind....

Were attendees at the meeting given any paperwork from Wheeler or El Pres regarding the Gasb?
Are those at the meeting able to contact David Wheeler directly? If not, who do you go through - El Prez?
Who was at the latest meeting?
Were any ideas or thoughts from people not at the meeting read out or discussed?

Thanks.

As regards the first query - I phrased it the way I did because the individual concerned made a point of saying that he was representing his branch, so the views he was expressing may not necessarily have been his own and I didn't want to personalise things, but since you asked, it was the Chair of the London branch, Lee Jameson, who wasn't at all keen on what I'd suggested. As I say, though, he was at pains to point out that he was there on behalf of his branch, so it may be that it's a Branch rather than individual objection.

As for the rest of it, we were given copies of all the submissions made concerning the way forward - I've posted my email to The Supreme Leader on the other GASBoard thread, but there were a number of other submissions made. I don't have any contact details for David Wheeler, I believe some other attendees do, but I stand to be corrected on that. I do have a number of ways of getting hold of TSL, so communication isn't a problem in that regard.

Who was at the latest meeting. I don't know the names of all the attendees, but I'm sure someone does. Hopefully they'll be along in a minute to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I will say that apart from the Prof and The Supreme Leader, Woz and Tim represented the Trust, Jon B Tony Cholwell, John Petrie, Lee Jameson and Peter Ryan were there. There were others whose names I didn't catch, so apologies for that.

The written submissions I referred to earlier did include stuff from people not at the meeting, so, yes, those who didn't attend but emailed in suggestions did have their thoughts presented to the meeting.

No wonder all the details are in such a mess when the chair of the meeting can't even do something as basic as getting everybody to introduce themselves at the beginning. That also makes it more likely people will speak in the debate, by the way.

So what we appear to have is a roomful of strangers, a muddled agenda, minimal paperwork, poor chairing, little or no publicity beyond the internet, a commitment to involving women and young people that hasn't been properly followed up, and the subtext of a campaign to undermine the Trust, which should be a crucial part of these discussions.

If I was setting something up to fail, that's pretty much how I'd go about it.

The Prof's email is readily available from a Google of his name, 3rd hit down for me.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A list of attendees was taken. Hopefully that will be released in the interests of openness.

The individual submissions were handed out at the start, from:

Jonathan Back. Basically saying the Trust and GASB should have different roles, with the GASB having the skills to properly scrutinise the club board... had a nice phrase "to provide scrutiny, by an independent cross section of appropriately skilled fans, to ensure that all such decisions and actions are undertaken in line with the agreed aims, objectives and values of the Club." Which I like, as it also raises the obvious question of what those aims, objectives and values are. He would like a GASB member to be sitting in club Board meetings though, which I personally don't expect to happen. He believes the right skill set for the GASB is more important than the full fanbase representation aspect.

Andy Chapman. Northern-based so keen that exiles are considered. Don't just focus on HP and ST holders, remember who gives us such a great away support.

Andy Symons. Name rings a bell.

John Petrie. Posted his views on Pasoti.

Rod Lampen. Concerned about the GASB electoral role, and suggested membership that will actually be there anyway if the Gold, Silver and Bronze club memberships happen next season as Chris stated.

Tony Hooper. Posted his views on Pasoti I think. Included suggestions as to what access to club minutes/finances/etc the GASB should have to be able to function effectively. On membership, suggested a long 4-year term. Basically saying GASB role is to scrutinise, and hold board to account, not to duplicate the Trust.

Hope that helps.

Tim

Looking at the names mentioned above, apart from Symons there are some good names involved. I'm 90% rest assured the Gas Board will be a success.

"to provide scrutiny, by an independent cross section of appropriately skilled fans, to ensure that all such decisions and actions are undertaken in line with the agreed aims, objectives and values of the Club."

The main skill needs are a big dollop of common sense and a fully functioning bullshit antenna. If all the accountants on the last board couldn't figure it out no amount of appropriate skills are really going to help.

Greenman wrote:

Looking at the names mentioned above, apart from Symons there are some good names involved. I'm 90% rest assured the Gas Board will be a success.

Its a shame you are not involved Greenman.

Greenman wrote:

Looking at the names mentioned above, apart from Symons there are some good names involved. I'm 90% rest assured the Gas Board will be a success.

Feel free to share your in-depth knowledge of my skills, experience, qualiifications and motivation for being involved. Because you must obviously know a lot about me to be able to make that statement.

Either that, or it's just a fairly juvenile attempt at trolling.

Why was the subject of the new 3-tiered membership scheme announced immediately after the GASBoard meeting - with the promise that the details would be announced later? Was it to give the (false) impression that this already dysfunctional body is able to make a decision and see it through to fruition? Surely this scheme was devised by the club - not the GASBoard. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that the scrapping of the White Membership scheme was a huge mistake, so replacing it with something similar is hardly a revolutionary idea.

How on earth is the GASBoard going to be able to scrutinise the club without the relevant information. Does anybody really imagine that JB is going to hand over all his intricate business details so the GASBoard can chew them over at their two-monthly meetings? Why should he. I'm a regular customer at Sainsbury's - I don't need to know the ins and outs of everything going on behind the scenes. If I don't like something, I can complain to the Manager or switch to Tesco. Same with Argyle - I can go to the Customer Service points manned by the Fans Trust and make my point or support Torquay instead.

Hi Dingle,

Re your first point, Chris W mentioned it in conversation, which is why I mentioned it as an 'ancillory' point raised in my first post above.

It's nothing to do with the GAS Board & any impression I gave otherwise is completely unintentional.

Cheers

Jon

I see on the other site that Tony Cholwell (aka Hooper) has stated that to his knowledge he is the only member of the GasBoard Steering group who is not a Trust member. So a whole new body is being set up just to include him. From what I've seen and know of Tony (who does indeed have many good ideas) I'm sure he is quite able to put his own views across without the need for agendas, minutes, databases, German models, sub-committees etc

As for the figure of 20,000 committed Argyle supporters - where has that come from? 40,000 might go to Wembley for a play-off or cup final (though admittedly both seem pretty long shots right now) but certainly won't be watching a match at Home Park anytime soon.

IMHO the whole idea of the GASBoard is an attempt to split the fanbase - not unite it as claimed.

Dingle wrote:

I see on the other site that Tony Cholwell (aka Hooper) has stated that to his knowledge he is the only member of the GasBoard Steering group who is not a Trust member. So a whole new body is being set up just to include him. From what I've seen and know of Tony (who does indeed have many good ideas) I'm sure he is quite able to put his own views across without the need for agendas, minutes, databases, German models, sub-committees etc

As for the figure of 20,000 committed Argyle supporters - where has that come from? 40,000 might go to Wembley for a play-off or cup final (though admittedly both seem pretty long shots right now) but certainly won't be watching a match at Home Park anytime soon.

IMHO the whole idea of the GASBoard is an attempt to split the fanbase - not unite it as claimed.

Stop being so reelx realesx reallisx............. negative !

I don't know Tony Chowell/ Hooper, and from what he posts he seems decent enough. Only thing I don't understand is why he's so anti-Trust but is positive about the GasBoard?

Both are fans' bodies- one is independent, one holds democratic elections for positions, one is currently organised and has members, the other is the GasBoard. Both will be critical of the club but represent the fans- is there a big difference?

I have many reservations about the GASBoard.

The chief one is that as a gift from James Brent as owner of the club, it could be withdrawn at any time. Therefore the GASBoard will never be free to criticise the owner (well, it could of course try, but would be ignored). If (or when) James Brent decides to sell the club, will the new owner take on the GASBoard? Doubtful. In the meantime, the independent Trust, set up to represent the fans, is sidelined. Never mind - if we do have another crisis, then at least Mr President will have a big flag and lots of buckets with which to rally the troops.

Dingle wrote:

I have many reservations about the GASBoard.

The chief one is that as a gift from James Brent as owner of the club, it could be withdrawn at any time. Therefore the GASBoard will never be free to criticise the owner (well, it could of course try, but would be ignored). If (or when) James Brent decides to sell the club, will the new owner take on the GASBoard? Doubtful. In the meantime, the independent Trust, set up to represent the fans, is sidelined. Never mind - if we do have another crisis, then at least Mr President will have a big flag and lots of buckets with which to rally the troops.

Nail. Hit. Head.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Dingle wrote:

I have many reservations about the GASBoard.

The chief one is that as a gift from James Brent as owner of the club, it could be withdrawn at any time. Therefore the GASBoard will never be free to criticise the owner (well, it could of course try, but would be ignored). If (or when) James Brent decides to sell the club, will the new owner take on the GASBoard? Doubtful. In the meantime, the independent Trust, set up to represent the fans, is sidelined. Never mind - if we do have another crisis, then at least Mr President will have a big flag and lots of buckets with which to rally the troops.

Nail. Hit. Head.

Stop being so bloody negative !

Dingle wrote:

I have many reservations about the GASBoard.

The chief one is that as a gift from James Brent as owner of the club, it could be withdrawn at any time. Therefore the GASBoard will never be free to criticise the owner (well, it could of course try, but would be ignored). If (or when) James Brent decides to sell the club, will the new owner take on the GASBoard? Doubtful. In the meantime, the independent Trust, set up to represent the fans, is sidelined. Never mind - if we do have another crisis, then at least Mr President will have a big flag and lots of buckets with which to rally the troops.

Exactly. The trust board is an independent organisation for the fans, which used to be all important to Chris Webb and his friends. Now the James Brent driven gas board is flavour of the month, and this will be a diluted pr exercise as controversial and useful as the presidents progress updates.

Greenman wrote:

Looking at the names mentioned above, apart from Symons there are some good names involved. I'm 90% rest assured the Gas Board will be a success.

I'm intrigued that you think that it will be a success, when no-one knows what it's going to do. A prime example of brainless blind faith.