Supporters Board Article..

Chemical Ali wrote:

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?

LCT has a certain ring to it

Greenjock wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

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?

LCT has a certain ring to it

You be careful with LCT otherwise Lee will want to join:)

I've looked at all the acronyms for LCT and it seems Loose Cannon Transvestite has been missed off for some strange reason. I do like Low Crap Threshold though

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

Tringreen wrote:

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.

........

I didn't intend to imply any conspiracy. The actions of the pasoti mods and others are clear to see. I was simply asking the question, "What is their motivation?" I haven't seen any attempt to put forward an argument merely endless mud-throwing.

The GasBoard is a gift from Brent nothing more nothing less. He could have gifted the same thing to the Trust but decided not to. I'll have no truck with his notion that the Trust is unrepresentative (it certainly is compared to the set up of the GasBoard). With a bit of creative thinking it could have been totally representative. Say all Argyle memberships included a Trust membership with the Trust membership fee included in the price.

All Argyle members are automatically members of the Trust. The Trust membership and it's funds automatically grow. You could even build in an opt out for Trust refuseniks with there subs going to charitable cause say St Johns Ambulance.

Anyone not an Argyle member can still join.

So already you have a Trust representing the total fan base unless they don't want to be represented. At one go Brents number one objection to the Trust is moot.

As to how the two groups can exsist side by side I've not seen one word written that explains why we need both or how they co-exsist or why they should co-exsist. I am uneasy about Brents offer to the Trust of the shareholding, money he says he doesn't need btw, without any Board representation. Two of his Board of Directors have spent less on a share of the club and a seat of power.

As it is the Trust is truly democratic whereas supporters groups, membership numbers unknown, can nominate if they want to. How this passed muster with the Proffessor and the President I really don't know. For a group seeking transparency from the main Argyle Board it's not a good start. Membership numbers should be published, votes should be cast and the results made public for each group. And while they are at it they could publish there financial position something that has been constantly demanded of the Trust. As it is I don't think you could think of a worse method of selecting GasBoard members.

Well that's not quite true. How about asking fans to nominate people then forget to pass out the nominations forms and then pass them out to a small crowd where half the crowd are bedecked in the colours of Man U. Imagine if you will the jockeying for position on Pasoti once the nominations are known, imagine the endorsements flying in from the 'great and the good' on there for their 'preferred' candidates. If you don't have a presence there I don't think you stand a chance anyway.

All this done to the background of Deep Throat, the ludicrous Rapson questioning, the removing of the Trust board from Pasoti, the general sniping at the Board and a suggestion of a coup. The Trust continues to work hard in the background whilst it appears that half the supporters groups can't be bothered to turn up to the Proffs meetings nor get there hands dirty handing making sure the nomonations went out (it's no excuse that the club were organising it they could have and should have made sure that everything was going hunky dory).

Apologies for going on.

Is Tony the only nominee to become very ATD-friendly of late?

(sorry Tone, just a gentle nudge to the ribs there)

JonB who posts on here occasionally was initially interested- I'm not sure if he still is?

Czarcasm...I've heard a few Pasotites say the same thing.Still fair play to TC he can have my vote thats for sure.The JB guy seems to have gone AWOL of late.As a senior green I haven't a clue who will be representing me on that one.

To be fair Tony has been the only person who has been very interested in the GasBoard though it appears to go hand in hand with his day one dislike of the Trust. To be honest it's another reason why I don't like the idea of the GasBoard if it's such a bigger turn on than the Trust to some people.

Vote Jock The Rest Are Cocks.

I can't understand Tony's immense enthusiasm for the GASBoard when he has always been so anti-trust. The chief difference I can see is that one is a gift from the owner of the club, which can therefore be withdrawn at any stage, while the other is truly independent of the club.

The numerous and varied c*ck-ups in the organisation of this revolutionary concept to date have confirmed my fears for Mr Joe Average fan's involvement in our club. All I can see is a lot of hot air and no influence whatsoever.

Anyway, let those that can be bothered get on with it - I just want to see Warren Feeney and Robbie Williams switch their playing style to that to West Ham. Now that is an exciting prospect.

I'm not standing ffs. Besides whatever day the meetings are is inconvenient for me. I reckon Peggy should stand as a woman is guaranteed a place on the board. They need someone to wash up the cups afterwards.

Ah I get it you're "not standing" gotcha say no more a nod is a good as a wink

Peggy is a lady, not a woman.

Czarcasm wrote:

Is Tony the only nominee to become very ATD-friendly of late?

(sorry Tone, just a gentle nudge to the ribs there)

Cheek!



Icame to ATD because I was urged to by one of your founders and because I missed Grovehill. So Czar I take very little personally and as rib ticklers go it was fine. To be honest, the process to date has neither been smooth nor fluent. But the PASB is no rival to the Trust as it will only concern itself with Plymouth Argyle and not the wider football world. As I have said many times elsewhere, the Trust have attended all the meetings and played a full part, they have also had private meeting with David Wheeler to which the rest of us were not privee. I am sure if the Trust were not comfortable with the process they would have withdrawn.

I think I also need to say that if anyone hopes to be elected just by contributing to a messageboard they are in for a shock, but thats for indivuals to decide on their level of committment.

But it will be independent from the Club and Board on both those elected/selected and positions they decide to take. If it were otherwise I would not stand. In my twenties I sat on a regional Whitleigh Council where the official side, provided us (staff side) with access to a joint secretariat, and other facilities to enable us to challenge them and scrutinise their policy decisions. Never was there a suggestion we were in their pocket because of this and I expect the PASB/Club Board relationship to be very similar.

Not everything to date has gone smoothly and not everything is written in stone, it can change. But it is still the best vehicle and most comprehensive means this club has atempted to fully engage with its fans. The Trust will play a big part in that, but not the only part.

Personally I shall be glad when nominations are declared and people will relax/get excited about the process a bit more.

tonycholwell wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Is Tony the only nominee to become very ATD-friendly of late?

(sorry Tone, just a gentle nudge to the ribs there)

Cheek!



Icame to ATD because I was urged to by one of your founders and because I missed Grovehill. So Czar I take very little personally and as rib ticklers go it was fine. To be honest, the process to date has neither been smooth nor fluent. But the PASB is no rival to the Trust as it will only concern itself with Plymouth Argyle and not the wider football world. As I have said many times elsewhere, the Trust have attended all the meetings and played a full part, they have also had private meeting with David Wheeler to which the rest of us were not privee. I am sure if the Trust were not comfortable with the process they would have withdrawn.

I think I also need to say that if anyone hopes to be elected just by contributing to a messageboard they are in for a shock, but thats for indivuals to decide on their level of committment.

But it will be independent from the Club and Board on both those elected/selected and positions they decide to take. If it were otherwise I would not stand. In my twenties I sat on a regional Whitleigh Council where the official side, provided us (staff side) with access to a joint secretariat, and other facilities to enable us to challenge them and scrutinise their policy decisions. Never was there a suggestion we were in their pocket because of this and I expect the PASB/Club Board relationship to be very similar.

Not everything to date has gone smoothly and not everything is written in stone, it can change. But it is still the best vehicle and most comprehensive means this club has atempted to fully engage with its fans. The Trust will play a big part in that, but not the only part.

Personally I shall be glad when nominations are declared and people will relax/get excited about the process a bit more.

That's so sweet Tony, I'm welling up here as I type.


You can probably all guess my thoughts on the GAS board or whatever it's being called these days (Club owner sets up group to investigate how owner runs club)-it's like a press baron setting up a Committee to look into the relationship between the media and the politicians. Imagine the Leverson Inquiry with Rupert Murdoch presiding and MS Brooks asking the questions.

There is a female vacancy.Staight forward contest between Peggy and Sue Pollard I would have thought.

Peggy please. Wins hands down.

tonycholwell wrote:

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.

Rubbish, how many 'average fans' get to watch games from the directors box. You've been against the trust from day one so don't pretend otherwise.

I think the Suspporters board is a crock of shit personally, the trust is the only body of supporters I'm interested in. It's run in accordance with SD guidelines, it's 100% independent, democratic and anyone can join. Obviously this is in unacceptable in some quarters.

Most trust members don't want to 'dine at the top table', you usually see them manning gazebo's and watching the football from their season ticket seat.

Dougie wrote:

Peggy please. Wins hands down.

Thanks but no thanks.

First and foremost, and harking back to my independent trade union (Trust) / staff association (GASBoard) analogies, I'm a trade unionist. I have no interest in standing for a body whose influence is entirely at the owner's whim, which has no independent resources and no access to independent advice and information. Even if the Trust put up a slate, it's not a given that I'd stand.

Second, because I'm not in favour of reserved seats. Yes, we need representation from all sections of the support, but when whoever gets elected to this seat gets something wrong, it'll only 'prove' that women should keep away from football. Unless, of course, that woman follows the party line (no insult intended to any woman supporter).

And third, because I have no wish to be called a whore, a witch or anything else I've been dubbed as yet again. Neither would I want any more attempts to have me removed from writing for the matchday programme, and neither would I want to have to live with my name being dragged through the mud for not being able to afford to renew my season ticket.

But thanks anyway.

The whole point of a Trust no matter what club is involved is to firstly to get a share of the club via a shareholding and secondly if possible convert that shareholding into a seat on the board.The Argyle Trust have so far failed to do that.Brent has also stated that despite the fact that the Trust may get get a shareholding they will never ever ever get a seat on the board.So frankly the trust are not going to have any influence on how the club is run whatsoever.

Jock you could stand for the supporters board as the token women just dress up like your old avatar picture nobody would know it was you.

Peggy wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Peggy please. Wins hands down.

Thanks but no thanks.

First and foremost, and harking back to my independent trade union (Trust) / staff association (GASBoard) analogies, I'm a trade unionist. I have no interest in standing for a body whose influence is entirely at the owner's whim, which has no independent resources and no access to independent advice and information. Even if the Trust put up a slate, it's not a given that I'd stand.

Second, because I'm not in favour of reserved seats. Yes, we need representation from all sections of the support, but when whoever gets elected to this seat gets something wrong, it'll only 'prove' that women should keep away from football. Unless, of course, that woman follows the party line (no insult intended to any woman supporter).

And third, because I have no wish to be called a whore, a witch or anything else I've been dubbed as yet again. Neither would I want any more attempts to have me removed from writing for the matchday programme, and neither would I want to have to live with my name being dragged through the mud for not being able to afford to renew my season ticket.

But thanks anyway.

Your third reason is the saddest of all. I've never met you but you're Internet persona, which I have no reason to doubt is anything different for your 'real' life one, display all the admirable qualities I believe are needed to hold the club to account whether they are displayed in a man women or youth representative. (btw have enjoyed your programme bits)

Dougie wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Peggy please. Wins hands down.

Thanks but no thanks.

First and foremost, and harking back to my independent trade union (Trust) / staff association (GASBoard) analogies, I'm a trade unionist. I have no interest in standing for a body whose influence is entirely at the owner's whim, which has no independent resources and no access to independent advice and information. Even if the Trust put up a slate, it's not a given that I'd stand.

Second, because I'm not in favour of reserved seats. Yes, we need representation from all sections of the support, but when whoever gets elected to this seat gets something wrong, it'll only 'prove' that women should keep away from football. Unless, of course, that woman follows the party line (no insult intended to any woman supporter).

And third, because I have no wish to be called a whore, a witch or anything else I've been dubbed as yet again. Neither would I want any more attempts to have me removed from writing for the matchday programme, and neither would I want to have to live with my name being dragged through the mud for not being able to afford to renew my season ticket.

But thanks anyway.

Your third reason is the saddest of all. I've never met you but you're Internet persona, which I have no reason to doubt is anything different for your 'real' life one, display all the admirable qualities I believe are needed to hold the club to account whether they are displayed in a man women or youth representative. (btw have enjoyed your programme bits)

Plus Peggy doesn't want to do the washing up after every meeting.

So if I put my gladrags and make-up on, would I stand more of a chance of being nominated as a woman or as an under 25?