Flyers?

Dougie wrote:

Sad I know but I've just had a look at the Profs powerpoint presentation. Surprisingly tit was easiest to find on The Trust website.

..........

Bloody hell! Is that what they're reduced to in order to bring membership in!

(Sorry)

Apologies for my boob.

(although you'd be banned on the other side for pointing it out)

Dougie wrote:

Apologies for my boob.

(although you'd be banned on the other side for pointing it out)

Too late.......

Now, now, surely this is just a storm in a D-Cup?

Dougie wrote:

Sad I know but I've just had a look at the Profs powerpoint presentation. Surprisingly tit was easiest to find on The Trust website.

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

Quote :

Independent Supporters Groups:

6 Members -­‐approx one member per 500 supporters

Quote :

Independent Supporters Groups:

Groups self-­‐organise to decide split of six places

Direct nominations decided and/or internal elections run by groups

I think they should publish a list of independent supporters groups and membership numbers and certainly if a person is affiliated to two groups they should be limited in voting in only one. Voting should be limited to members with at least a years membership for example to stop any gerrymandering.

The second quote is more worrying. It should be mandatory for elections to take place in the supporters groups with a full hustings. Direct nominations I ask you!

For a group tasked with holding the Board to account and wanting transparency you couldn't make up a worse set of conditions for forming a board.

It reeks of smoked filled rooms, deals being done and multi voting. And this is the result of months and months of meetings, consultation and employing an expert in such matters.

Again if the Trust had been run along the same lines there would have been a commotion to say the least. Can you imagine someone like Rapson or Chowell Gas board lover in Chief going along with anything like this for the Trust.

Well spotted and well said....


Also --

In the pdf:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Newsletter and programme communication May 5th"

So, was anything in the programme on Saturday? (And so far there is still nothing on the baggo as far as I can see)

And then there is this...

"It was noted that supporters who are not signed up members of the club or an independent supporters group will not be able to participate directly in the formation of the interim board. Mechanisms to include such supporters in future elections may be designed during 2102/13"

So... I guess that means 'Exiles' like me?

We need a list of who is defined as an “independant supporters group” and – If I have read it correctly - the notion that they are to self organise and decide the split of six seats on the face of it seems laughable.

And, who are “club members”? Are these season ticket holders? Whoever they are, it is proposed they get six of the twelve seats!


Answers please, Mr Prez...?

Hi all,

I can't of course answer every question, but can add some clarity to some of the queries....

I would also add my frustrations to those already expressed, including those from Chris W; I've had no update or communication since our last meeting at the Holiday Inn. I would balance this mind, by adding that I do think the position is repairable.

Anyway, to answer a few things from the above....

I think that Rick's presumption that exiles will be the only group excluded from the process for the current time is inaccurate - I think the eligibility will only apply - at this time - to season ticket holders & members of recognised fan clubs....

These recognised / independent groups have already been identified & those that want to take part in this venture have continued to attend the Board meetings. These groups seemed to be ok with deciding amongst themselves how representation would be split.

As for 'club members' - yes, these are st holders & to answer one of Peggy's points earlier, with certainty we ran 'memberships' rather than 'season ticket holders' only a couple of years back...

Coming back to my opinion, I have consistently expressed concerns about the Board stepping on the toes of the Trust & that there needs to be appropriate 'differentation'. I have also consistently maintained that to function well, the Board membership should be selected around skill set, not popularity & should then operate with discretion unless / until public visibility is required to help it achieve it's aim(s).

There seems to be too much focus on the people & the numbers involved at the mo....

As I said at the top of this, all resolvable though.

Jon

I dont think there are any wholly INDEPENDANT supporters groups, i think they are all affilaited.

There are a few long standing supporters groups London, Northern, Plymouth & Cornish.
I suppose the so called forza verde are too?

The Avon branch has restarted but dont know if theyre affilated yet.
Midland Greens i think no longer exist other than a few getting together occasssionally.

One issue though jonb is that these meetings always take place when there are trust meetings too so 'isolated' fan groups struggle to attend.

This whole thing is a complete mess in the making, IMHO.

JonB wrote:

Anyway, to answer a few things from the above....

I think that Rick's presumption that exiles will be the only group excluded from the process for the current time is inaccurate - I think the eligibility will only apply - at this time - to season ticket holders & members of recognised fan clubs....

These recognised / independent groups have already been identified & those that want to take part in this venture have continued to attend the Board meetings. These groups seemed to be ok with deciding amongst themselves how representation would be split.

With all due respect Jon, I didn't "presume" anything. I certainly never ever thought that the 'Exile' group I find myself in, would be the only group excluded!

And therein lies an inherent problem with the set-up (and I mean "set-up" in the broadest sense of the word) of the GasB, or PasB as Pasoti seem to have labelled it? There is no way with this format that all fans can be represented.

Your second point... You say the groups have been identified. So who are the favoured independent groups that are still in the running? Is there more than six of them? If not, I am not surprised they are "Okay" with deciding amongst themselves how representation would be split!

Is the Trust one of them?
Since by this stage these groups are known, why weren't they listed - why refer to them annonomously?

And here is where I do disagree with you Jon --

The way this is all 'panning' out in the scheme of things... With the Trust situation, and with the influence certain people seem to have, with either, advising, planning, scheming, disrupting, and lying about things....

This is the age of the internet - social media etc ... And since we are led to believe that "real' fans who attend, don't care....

I don't think the situation is resolveable.


JonB, I realise these really aren't questions for you, but rather for David Wheeler and El Presidente!

But El Prez doesn't answer my questions on ATD. Or take suggestions....



I think he's got a "chip" on his shoulder.

I think these so called recognized groups should be clearly identified....so that everybody knows if they are part of one and so eligible.

I personally am involved in four groups of PAFC related organizations........are all of them recognized ?......how do I know......maybe I have four different hats....or none at all.....it just seems to be rather messy for the ordinary supporter like myself........in fact you start to wonder if that is the intention of the powers that be.

Ricks,

Just a fleeting visit at the mo but on re-reading my post (& your reply) my first paragraph (re your 'presumption') was clumsily worded - in my head it sounded more supportive of the point that you made than how it reads.

Jon

Maybe ....presumes instead of presumption is more correct........JonB...........apologies for intruding.

I stand graciously corrected Sir.

I've just seen that Chris's promised update is now online:

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

Jon

What makes a fair election?

an independent, non-partisan electoral organisation to administer the process

an open and transparent ballot counting process

equitable opportunities for the electorate to receive voter information

Anymore?

Trying to be nothing but helpful JonB.......hope you havn't read anything un-intended into my post.

Was this actually proof read by any one? I'm not sure that the use of the semi-colon in Mr Presidents section is how they were intended.

hairy j wrote:

Was this actually proof read by any one? I'm not sure that the use of the semi-colon in Mr Presidents section is how they were intended.

You're banned for correcting punctuation. Troll!!!!! (A few floating apostrophes as well.)

knecht wrote:

hairy j wrote:

Was this actually proof read by any one? I'm not sure that the use of the semi-colon in Mr Presidents section is how they were intended.

You're banned for correcting punctuation. Troll!!!!! (A few floating apostrophes as well.)

Educated wankers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the ability to write badly!

Tune in to hear Sparksy asking the tough questions tomorrow

Quote :

Chris Webb ‏ @Chris_Webb1
On with @SparksyOnRadio tomorrow at 0715 to discuss the Supporters Board [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tune in #pafc #jointheclub

Peggy wrote:

knecht wrote:

hairy j wrote:

Was this actually proof read by any one? I'm not sure that the use of the semi-colon in Mr Presidents section is how they were intended.

You're banned for correcting punctuation. Troll!!!!! (A few floating apostrophes as well.)

Educated wankers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the ability to write badly!

Bloody grammar school kids.

Do educated wankers do it one-handed whilst the other is taking notes?