Supporters Board Article..

From today's Herald..

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

Chris

Are there any ATDers throwing their hat into the ring.Tony Chowell are you going for it?

I don't know how many times I have asked this question in a number of places: what does the PASB have to offer that the Trust couldn't do?

My cynicism, that I resist, tells me that Mr Brent saw an independent strong organisation and decided he didn't want that. Is that too Machiavellian a view?

I don't necessarily buy into the suggestion that the high-profile support from certain senior supporters is based upon what they can get out of it. But their motivation remains unclear to me. I know the joke is that they get to be mates with the owner plus a parking space but I don't believe that. All I have read from another poster is a dissatisfaction with the wider plans of the Trust to become involved in a national organisation. It doesn't add up.

There have been undeniably clear attempts by individuals as well as by the pasoti hierarchy to denigrate the Trust. Is this based totally upon the perception that they would have their power and influence diminished? If it is based on a perception of the unacceptability of individuals in the Trust, to go to the extent that pasoti has seems ridiculous and undemocratic to me. That needs to be dealt with openly and via the Trust structures.

It seems to me that little or no attempt has been made to sell the idea of the PASB by defining what it has to offer that the Trust can't. Instead we have been steam-rollered into supporting the body with a lot of 'you know it makes sense' vacuous arguments.

Ultimately the existence of the PASB runs the risk of watering down the Trust as a body that would hold the club to account.

Didn't you read the quotes boy. It's "an opportunity to dine at the top table"!! Perhaps an unfortunate cliche for Webby to use.

I have the same feelings and questions as you Knecht but from what I see generally the overwhelming reaction to the whole hair brained exercise from the ordinary fan is apathy.

If it ends up as a club for the usual suspects, or their nominees, I expect some of us might be prepared to give it the scrutiny that some on Pasoti are subjecting the Trust to right now.

I missed the "top table" quote, Charlie. It is an unfortunate choice of words - a body whose reason for existence shouldn't be metaphorically dining with the club owners. I wonder what Freud would have to say about such a choice of words!

Echo the comments above, I'm still to be convinced of the purpose of the PASB and how it differs from the Trust- in some aspects its worse because it is not independent of the club (not saying he would but JB could withdraw funding at any time- how would the PASB raise funds?).

Not many seem interested in the PASB and the herald only has 2 comments,so far, which are both negative towards it. We Janners (well me anyway) are simple, moaning, miserable buggers who aren't easily pushed into things and won't back something that is worse than the current option- all the published info, Q&A with JB/ PJ etc are still to convince me that the PASB is worthwhile.

I would have preferred the club to work with the Trust to promote both- take Motherwell and its Well Society (which now has two seats on their board admittedly through the ex-chairman donating shares) which offers fans shirts, tickets etc as part of membership, child members go into a mascot draw etc. I know Argyle have part done this with the membership packages but this only seems to go halfway.

I don't think the over the top and constant attacks on the Fans' Trust has also helped the PASB cause. Many can see through the constant attacks and have sympathy for the Fan's Trust. Its clear to see that there is an anti-Trust agenda- Deep Throat/Windsor Boy/ Derrick Sanderson/ Deadly Lampshade, followed by constant attacks on the Wozzer less board, relegation of the trust board to a sub-forum followed by removal of the Trust board on pasoti (which many have said they can't see the point).

I remember the 'Consortium' (which I supported) being roundly criticised for approaching the club wrongly, I think we are experiencing something similar with the Fans' Trust/ PASB.

knecht wrote:

I missed the "top table" quote, Charlie. It is an unfortunate choice of words - a body whose reason for existence shouldn't be metaphorically dining with the club owners. I wonder what Freud would have to say about such a choice of words!

I have to say, I agree with both Charlie and knecht about the Presidents choice of words. Unfortunate use of the “dine at the top table” phrase because with 12 people on the PASB let alone the Board, it may be hard enough to find a table to fit them all.

I am sure in hindsight Chris may regret writing that, as it conveys to its opponents a “snouts in the trough” approach which would not be correct. I see the PASB as a pure mechanism to bring the Club owners and Fans together in the same room to exchange views and examine critically the operation of the club.

Mr Brent is a canny businessman but is Argyle naïve which gives us the opportunity to have a real impact.

On the 24th May I wrote the following on Pasoti

“Make no mistake this is truly a wonderful opportunity that we as fans have been gifted and it is one we should take with hands and eyes wide open. I hear voices saying that it will not be independent; independent of whom I ask? The Main Board? Are people really suggesting that the Board of PAFC will determine the policy and objectives of the PAFB? Poppycock (trying to be polite) that’s nonsense and barely worthy of reply. But the Board could abolish the process at any time? Of course they could but having facilitated its birth not really likely is it? Another owner, I’ve heard, would abolish it. Why? Why abolish something that’s bedded in by such a time as James Brent doesn’t feel he can take the club any further? Anyway, this pre supposes that a supervisory board would be seen by owners as a bad and negative thing.

We sometimes forget that after the end of the Second World War, it was the British who helped put the German economy back on the rails and introduced the principles of supervisory boards. It was John Whitley who in 1917 produced a report to ensure good relations between employers and employees to keep the war effort on track. After the war, his recommendations were introduced into the Civil Service and many of us remember the Whitley Council, in fact I served on one, so know they were not just a talking shop. 40 years after my experiences the principles of a forum bringing stakeholders together for the good of all is as relevant today as it was in 1917 when Mr Whitley first proposed it.

It was noticeable recently that the Board clearly took on board the representations made by fans in the season ticket packages. It was also apparent that people wanted again to reconnect with the club. Result? Memberships to suit every price range and just about any circumstances. It is these bread and butter issues along with the catering and stewards that most active fans are interested in. It is about the new stand and what it will provide and how much is the playing budget and will it be affected by historic debt.

In many ways now the fans are contributing in setting the agenda, from Membership to Fans Fests, from Kicking Racism out to providing match day buses. Sometimes these issues are mocked, yet for those who use them and are affected by them they are important.

And the PASB can do more of this whilst scrutinising the Main Board proposals and actions. It can do this because it will have access to the Board and its proposals. And it can do this by opening up the channels for supporters to have real input to the debate and the decisions taken.

And it will do this by being independent of the Board and Club. It will have authority from its democratic mandate, be that via supporters clubs or independent members.”

That is still my position; it is not sidelining the Trust. They are an important and constituent part of the process. Their representatives were at all the steering group meetings and they had private consultations with David Wheeler. To my knowledge, publicly they supported the proposals.

Re Knecht's OP.............I've been saying this from the outset but when it comes from me, it is clearly just a conspiracy theory and another unfair attack on Pasoti and its controllers.

If logical answers could be given to these questions and the Trust was not under attack, I would gladly shut up.

'If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.' Mark Twain.

Looks like Grumpy Git won't be one of Tony Cholwell's 20 signatures either

Yay I posted the 50,000th message on ATD. What do I get?

Greenjock wrote:

Looks like Grumpy Git won't be one of Tony Cholwell's 20 signatures either

Made I laff

Yay I posted the 50,001 and I only need 43 more posts to have a vote:)

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

GOB wrote:

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

Gob

Id love to see your evidence:)

The idea of hand picked via election is an interesting one.

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

Gob

Id love to see your evidence:)

The idea of hand picked via election is an interesting one.

Well it's hardly been advertised that well outside of a couple of internet forums, until this Herald article, produced post season so will have much less impact than during the season, and I would think that the majority of people elected onto the PASB will be friends of, or part of the recent attacks on The Trust.

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

Gob

Id love to see your evidence:)

The idea of hand picked via election is an interesting one.

Didn't you know, it's the pasoti way!

As always, Tony, an interesting post. (OK .... not always.) and lots to agree with there. But I still see no argument in favour of the PASB as opposed to the Trust. (I'll go away and look up "Whitley Council .... I'm much younger than you....)

The function of the PASB that you are describing can easily be subsumed within the work of the Trust. All I can see is the suggestion that "the ordinary fan" - the so-called silent majority - has no interest in the wider politics of football and its governance. That may be true but it applies in all sorts of areas in life. That doesn't mean that the wider issues aren't important. The Trust could cover all eventualities. The PASB won't.

Equally the reason why Mr Brent and people within the pasoti hierarchy are running with this one remains an enigma.

I'd like to 'dine at the top table', but I have some specific dietary requirements. I have an intolerance to bull****, and find that being 'fed a line' makes me feel rather unwell. My doctor says I don't have the 'deep throat' that is required to digest such things!

Greenjock wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

Gob

Id love to see your evidence:)

The idea of hand picked via election is an interesting one.

Well it's hardly been advertised that well outside of a couple of internet forums, until this Herald article, produced post season so will have much less impact than during the season, and I would think that the majority of people elected onto the PASB will be friends of, or part of the recent attacks on The Trust.

Jock what you say may turn out but I doubt it, I think you will be plesantly surprised by who does stand and conversely, who does not.

And just for the record, I have not been involved either directly or indirectly with the attacks you mention on the Trust.

knecht wrote:

As always, Tony, an interesting post. (OK .... not always.) and lots to agree with there. But I still see no argument in favour of the PASB as opposed to the Trust. (I'll go away and look up "Whitley Council .... I'm much younger than you....)

The function of the PASB that you are describing can easily be subsumed within the work of the Trust. All I can see is the suggestion that "the ordinary fan" - the so-called silent majority - has no interest in the wider politics of football and its governance. That may be true but it applies in all sorts of areas in life. That doesn't mean that the wider issues aren't important. The Trust could cover all eventualities. The PASB won't.

Equally the reason why Mr Brent and people within the pasoti hierarchy are running with this one remains an enigma.

Exactly Knecht, the only conclusion that I can reach is that Brent fears a Trust voice that has a majority backing and would prefer to create a divide to weaken that voice. I don't believe that it's coincidental that those that have recently been exposed carrying out underhand tactics are more closely linked to Brent than the average fan involved in this.

knecht wrote:

As always, Tony, an interesting post. (OK .... not always.) and lots to agree with there. But I still see no argument in favour of the PASB as opposed to the Trust. (I'll go away and look up "Whitley Council .... I'm much younger than you....)

The function of the PASB that you are describing can easily be subsumed within the work of the Trust. All I can see is the suggestion that "the ordinary fan" - the so-called silent majority - has no interest in the wider politics of football and its governance. That may be true but it applies in all sorts of areas in life. That doesn't mean that the wider issues aren't important. The Trust could cover all eventualities. The PASB won't.

Equally the reason why Mr Brent and people within the pasoti hierarchy are running with this one remains an enigma.

JB is one thing, it was his idea. But Pasoti? Besides the forum which will probably be a short term thing, I cant find any evidence of Pasoti supporting the PASB.

Enjoy your reading of the Whitley Councils, very educational.

Sorry, just read Gobs last post and happy to be an average fan, no super fan here.

tonycholwell wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

Gob

Id love to see your evidence:)

The idea of hand picked via election is an interesting one.

Well it's hardly been advertised that well outside of a couple of internet forums, until this Herald article, produced post season so will have much less impact than during the season, and I would think that the majority of people elected onto the PASB will be friends of, or part of the recent attacks on The Trust.

Jock what you say may turn out but I doubt it, I think you will be plesantly surprised by who does stand and conversely, who does not.

And just for the record, I have not been involved either directly or indirectly with the attacks you mention on the Trust.

Sorry Tony, I hope you didn't think I was including you in the attacks on The Trust, because I don't believe for one minute that you were involved.

I could well be wrong, but I get the impression that Lee will be putting himself forward, and if Wozzer, Leigh, Ian Newell or any of the other Pasoti mods throw their hat into the ring, then it would explain some of the recent events.

Greenjock wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Other than a weakening of the input of the Trust by way of dirty tricks, I understand no reason what-so-ever for the existence of this junta.

My belief is that Brent does not want fans representation as he has portrayed in the media, he simply wants a hand picked junta of head nodders that are content to betray their fellow fans and their club for a position of favor, with perks.

Gob

Id love to see your evidence:)

The idea of hand picked via election is an interesting one.

Well it's hardly been advertised that well outside of a couple of internet forums, until this Herald article, produced post season so will have much less impact than during the season, and I would think that the majority of people elected onto the PASB will be friends of, or part of the recent attacks on The Trust.

Jock what you say may turn out but I doubt it, I think you will be plesantly surprised by who does stand and conversely, who does not.

And just for the record, I have not been involved either directly or indirectly with the attacks you mention on the Trust.

Sorry Tony, I hope you didn't think I was including you in the attacks on The Trust, because I don't believe for one minute that you were involved.

I could well be wrong, but I get the impression that Lee will be putting himself forward, and if Wozzer, Leigh, Ian Newell or any of the other Pasoti mods throw their hat into the ring, then it would explain some of the recent events.

I know this will come out naff, but I'll refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier:). I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Don't you go calling me honourable or a gentleman! I must be slipping in my old age if that's how I come across to you.

Greenjock wrote:

Don't you go calling me honourable or a gentleman! I must be slipping in my old age if that's how I come across to you.

Would you prefer Loose Canon Transvestite?