Should we press for/have a vote against having PASB?

For the sake of brevity Tringy I will not quote the whole of your post or indeed mine.

"For your part, you have always been willing to debate with me and I trust that your intentions are genuine and that you truly believe you can help the club progress.
Only time will tell I suppose and if it makes you feel good, why not ?"

My intentions are always genuine as I cant be bothered doing other than that and Ive always enjoyed our tussles, which have normally been good tempered.

I do believe I have the skills to help hold the Board to account and in doing so progress.

Oh and to Mock, he is right, Cholwell is in NE Somerset which if you look under my screen name you will see it says NE Somerset:)

We call that a clue!

I'm enlightened...

Tony, serious question, what do you think can be achieved by PASB that the Trust couldn't achieve acting alone?

I've got a question too! what do you call a man with no shins, Tony?

GOB wrote:

Tony, serious question, what do you think can be achieved by PASB that the Trust couldn't achieve acting alone?

Good question and honest answer:

1. The PASB will never be compromised by ownership issues which is still an objective of the Trust.

2. The PASB is only concerned with the running of Plymouth Argyle and not wider football issues.

3. It has the capacity to be non partizan and therfore attract wider public acceptance.

4. It will attract people that have an expertise in certain fields relevent to the brief of the PASB that have not been attracted to stand for the Trust. I had better not out anyone, but nominations will be available to be seen by all after the 30th June.

5. To me it will be more inclusive, all sections of the fanbase have been encouraged to stand, men, women and younger fans, supporters clubs, disabled fans. Whilst none of these have been excluded by the Trust nor have they been encouraged, perhaps this election will spark a change.

6. The Trust was born out of adverse circumstances but now we are back in more peaceful times many do not see the Trust as the way forward. I appreciate the club could face difficult times again, but in its 125 year history it has had 2 bad financial years. Whilst JB owns the club the PASB will have oversight and make representations constructively but forcibly to ensure the club stays on the straight and narrow. Post JB? Who knows but lets not lose sight of the now and make it worthwhile just not a plaything for any one group or people.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

I've got a question too! what do you call a man with no shins, Tony?

I hope you dont call him Tony!

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Tony, serious question, what do you think can be achieved by PASB that the Trust couldn't achieve acting alone?

Good question and honest answer:

1. The PASB will never be compromised by ownership issues which is still an objective of the Trust.

2. The PASB is only concerned with the running of Plymouth Argyle and not wider football issues.

3. It has the capacity to be non partizan and therfore attract wider public acceptance.

4. It will attract people that have an expertise in certain fields relevent to the brief of the PASB that have not been attracted to stand for the Trust. I had better not out anyone, but nominations will be available to be seen by all after the 30th June.

5. To me it will be more inclusive, all sections of the fanbase have been encouraged to stand, men, women and younger fans, supporters clubs, disabled fans. Whilst none of these have been excluded by the Trust nor have they been encouraged, perhaps this election will spark a change.

6. The Trust was born out of adverse circumstances but now we are back in more peaceful times many do not see the Trust as the way forward. I appreciate the club could face difficult times again, but in its 125 year history it has had 2 bad financial years. Whilst JB owns the club the PASB will have oversight and make representations constructively but forcibly to ensure the club stays on the straight and narrow. Post JB? Who knows but lets not lose sight of the now and make it worthwhile just not a plaything for any one group or people.

Cheers for that Tony and equally good replies worthy of consideration. Based on your replies, do you think the Trust should have an involvement at all?

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Tony, serious question, what do you think can be achieved by PASB that the Trust couldn't achieve acting alone?

Good question and honest answer:

1. The PASB will never be compromised by ownership issues which is still an objective of the Trust.

2. The PASB is only concerned with the running of Plymouth Argyle and not wider football issues.

3. It has the capacity to be non partizan and therfore attract wider public acceptance.

4. It will attract people that have an expertise in certain fields relevent to the brief of the PASB that have not been attracted to stand for the Trust. I had better not out anyone, but nominations will be available to be seen by all after the 30th June.

5. To me it will be more inclusive, all sections of the fanbase have been encouraged to stand, men, women and younger fans, supporters clubs, disabled fans. Whilst none of these have been excluded by the Trust nor have they been encouraged, perhaps this election will spark a change.

6. The Trust was born out of adverse circumstances but now we are back in more peaceful times many do not see the Trust as the way forward. I appreciate the club could face difficult times again, but in its 125 year history it has had 2 bad financial years. Whilst JB owns the club the PASB will have oversight and make representations constructively but forcibly to ensure the club stays on the straight and narrow. Post JB? Who knows but lets not lose sight of the now and make it worthwhile just not a plaything for any one group or people.

Cheers for that Tony and equally good replies worthy of consideration. Based on your replies, do you think the Trust should have an involvement at all?

Funnily enough I do. The original intention of JB was to have representation from a number of sections to get that more inclusive feel. The GTs decided they would prefer to carry on as they were but outside of the PASB. However, another section was the supporters groups, including the Trust and I think it right and proper that should be so.

What I am disappointed about to date is the supporters groups were due to meet and compare membership numbers and negotiate how to split up the 6 seats they had reserved for them. This has not been done whilst the independent candidates have until the 30th June to get their completed nominations in. I consider this poor if Im honest and it will start to highlight disproportionate electorates. I honestly dont know the Trust current membership figure, lets say 1,200; the London Branch Im told have about 300, it is difficult to get any other figues, so lets say 2,000 in total or their 6 seats. Already we have 8 candidates for the 4 general seats with an electorate of 3,500 and climbing. Im sure you can see where Im going..........

So, short answer Yes to the Trust being on PASB, Hurry up to the Supporters Groups to get the facts out and negotiate.

If I may butt in here for just a moment.I see the supporters groups as a big weakness in the make up of the GAS Board.The supporters groups rarely agree on anything,each having their own identities to support.Also which supporters groups will be allowed a member,with six places up for grabs there is bound to be much infighting.Lastly I am a Senior Green.We are on our summer holidays at the moment,with the next Senior Greens meeting,not until the end of July.There wont therefore be a democratically elected person at all at all,but merely a nod and a wink from committee level which I would expect the same will be of all the supporters groups.So supporters groups members will be having no say whatsover in an unelected representation.With people from so many different backgrounds and supporters groups how are you going to agree on anything going forward.From a Trust point of view at least they were all singing from the same song sheet,I am not so sure the GAS Board will be.

oddball wrote:

If I may butt in here for just a moment.I see the supporters groups as a big weakness in the make up of the GAS Board.The supporters groups rarely agree on anything,each having their own identities to support.Also which supporters groups will be allowed a member,with six places up for grabs there is bound to be much infighting.Lastly I am a Senior Green.We are on our summer holidays at the moment,with the next Senior Greens meeting,not until the end of July.There wont therefore be a democratically elected person at all at all,but merely a nod and a wink from committee level which I would expect the same will be of all the supporters groups.So supporters groups members will be having no say whatsover in an unelected representation.With people from so many different backgrounds and supporters groups how are you going to agree on anything going forward.From a Trust point of view at least they were all singing from the same song sheet,I am not so sure the GAS Board will be.

Al, if you had been to the steering group meetings you would have realised most of the supporters group representertives were also Trust members, so life isnt always quite black and white.

On the broader point I do not think it sustainable that for the same organisation you can have 2 different voting systems and constituencies. I truly hope it will change at the earliest convenience and as I alluded to earlier on its not helped by vastly different constituency sizes.

Still, not time to throw baby out with bathwater Too many plus points for a revolutionary system at our football club

To my knowlegde so far all GASB or PASB meetings have been arranged at the same time as other trust meetings, not all branches have memebrs who can attend meetings in plymouth three hours or so before kick off & be in two places at once.

As Oddball says fans are on holidays at moment, it will be interesting to see who is up for election in June.

oddball wrote:

If I may butt in here for just a moment.I see the supporters groups as a big weakness in the make up of the GAS Board.The supporters groups rarely agree on anything,each having their own identities to support.Also which supporters groups will be allowed a member,with six places up for grabs there is bound to be much infighting.Lastly I am a Senior Green.We are on our summer holidays at the moment,with the next Senior Greens meeting,not until the end of July.There wont therefore be a democratically elected person at all at all,but merely a nod and a wink from committee level which I would expect the same will be of all the supporters groups.So supporters groups members will be having no say whatsover in an unelected representation.With people from so many different backgrounds and supporters groups how are you going to agree on anything going forward.From a Trust point of view at least they were all singing from the same song sheet,I am not so sure the GAS Board will be.

It's OK Oddball, IJN joined recently so I'm sure he'll sort out your lots nomination in absence of the majority of members

I am a senior green and thought they had decided they didn't want to participate in the hot air society. Didn't Dunlop go to one of the steering committee meetings?

Dingle wrote:

I am a senior green and thought they had decided they didn't want to participate in the hot air society. Didn't Dunlop go to one of the steering committee meetings?

I hope this is true. It would be so funny if none of the supporters groups show any interest, just like the GT's. This insistence on there being one young and one woman board member is also strange to me. Surely in this day and age it should be the most worthy or person with the most votes, rather than what category they fall into. What about disabled supporters? Or fans with beards?

Greenjock wrote:

Dingle wrote:

I am a senior green and thought they had decided they didn't want to participate in the hot air society. Didn't Dunlop go to one of the steering committee meetings?

I hope this is true. It would be so funny if none of the supporters groups show any interest, just like the GT's. This insistence on there being one young and one woman board member is also strange to me. Surely in this day and age it should be the most worthy or person with the most votes, rather than what category they fall into. What about disabled supporters? Or fans with beards?

They already haven't - few groups turned up to the meeting and fewer still to all the meetings. Finding out who attended the 'full to overflowing' meetings was like pulling hens teeth.

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

Tony, serious question, what do you think can be achieved by PASB that the Trust couldn't achieve acting alone?

Good question and honest answer:

1. The PASB will never be compromised by ownership issues which is still an objective of the Trust.

2. The PASB is only concerned with the running of Plymouth Argyle and not wider football issues.

3. It has the capacity to be non partizan and therfore attract wider public acceptance.

4. It will attract people that have an expertise in certain fields relevent to the brief of the PASB that have not been attracted to stand for the Trust. I had better not out anyone, but nominations will be available to be seen by all after the 30th June.

5. To me it will be more inclusive, all sections of the fanbase have been encouraged to stand, men, women and younger fans, supporters clubs, disabled fans. Whilst none of these have been excluded by the Trust nor have they been encouraged, perhaps this election will spark a change.

6. The Trust was born out of adverse circumstances but now we are back in more peaceful times many do not see the Trust as the way forward. I appreciate the club could face difficult times again, but in its 125 year history it has had 2 bad financial years. Whilst JB owns the club the PASB will have oversight and make representations constructively but forcibly to ensure the club stays on the straight and narrow. Post JB? Who knows but lets not lose sight of the now and make it worthwhile just not a plaything for any one group or people.

Compromised is a strange choice of words. A shareholding Trust with a seat of the Board would be the most fully engaged of shareholders (note - not that brent will allow this and has also put a high price on ownership without the benefits enjoyed by other shareholding Directors). As opposed to an organisation as a gift of the owner, seeking funding from the owner for its activities. How much easier to be compromised in that situation.

A Gasboard without an eye on the wider football world is parochial at best. Safe standing for example is a widely held wish for alot of football fans. It would not distract from the Trust just because they have a bigger remit. I suspect there is nothing the Gasboard comes up with that the Trust wouldn't anyway and that is the point.

"It has the capacity to be non partizan" strange choice of phrase. It suggests the Trust is partizan. In which case what party politcal line does it take. Where is it's bias?

Please save me from experts in certain fields. I rather have my mum with her ability to see straight to the heart of a matter and a huge dollop of common sense represent me. The Professor is an expert in his field and has come up with this slapdash, poorly conceived and poorly executed idea. And let not forget that accounting expert P Stapleton and football expert R Gardiner.

I don't recognise the need to represent certain demographics. I recognise the need to make the election as open to as many people as possible and to ensure it doesn't turn into an internet beauty contest with nominees ordained there.

By the same token there is no need for a Gasboard. I seen enough people say that James Brent will do alright by Argyle and to be honest the whole Gasboard agenda can probably be dealt with the annual Trust/John Lloyd survey. If the Board addresses the concerns contained therein and communicate their decisions - job done.

tonycholwell wrote:

Good question and honest answer:

1. The PASB will never be compromised by ownership issues which is still an objective of the Trust. I can't see the Trust ever being the owner of the club. How do you balance your point with the fact that the PASB is an owner-sponsored body and therefore compromised in a different way?

2. The PASB is only concerned with the running of Plymouth Argyle and not wider football issues. My view is that there will be increasing issues with the running of football clubs - the fact that 'wider football issues' would be part of the brief of the Trust I see as a positive thing.

3. It has the capacity to be non partizan and therfore attract wider public acceptance. I'm not sure the point you're making here - see my response to point 1 above.

4. It will attract people that have an expertise in certain fields relevent to the brief of the PASB that have not been attracted to stand for the Trust. I had better not out anyone, but nominations will be available to be seen by all after the 30th June. The Trust has the ability to co-opt people. They also have access to Supporters' Direct and the combined abilities of other Trusts.

5. To me it will be more inclusive, all sections of the fanbase have been encouraged to stand, men, women and younger fans, supporters clubs, disabled fans. Whilst none of these have been excluded by the Trust nor have they been encouraged, perhaps this election will spark a change. This is an argument for the Trust to become more actively inclusive. It is not an argument for a separate body. You appear to have inside info on the people who are standing for the PASB - it will be interesting to see whether the body actually matches up to your inclusive agenda.

6. The Trust was born out of adverse circumstances but now we are back in more peaceful times many do not see the Trust as the way forward. I appreciate the club could face difficult times again, but in its 125 year history it has had 2 bad financial years. Whilst JB owns the club the PASB will have oversight and make representations constructively but forcibly to ensure the club stays on the straight and narrow. Post JB? Who knows but lets not lose sight of the now and make it worthwhile just not a plaything for any one group or people.

I am a bit unclear on this. Will the PASB have full access to 'the books'? If not then their brief remains one of advising on pasties and offers to season-ticket holders members. And your final slipping in of "Post JB? Who knows..." is a central issue - the PASB is entirely in the gift of the present owner. His stewardship may only be for a very few years. What would the next owner have to say?

I am aware of some of the potential strengths of the PASB. I remain unconvinced that these outweigh what the Trust has to offer now or couldn't offer in future if the same amount of sponsorship were to be put into it.

(And i've just read your post, Dougie. So much that we are in agreement with.)

Quote :

I honestly dont know the Trust current membership figure, lets say 1,200; the London Branch Im told have about 300, it is difficult to get any other figues, so lets say 2,000 in total or their 6 seats. Already we have 8 candidates for the 4 general seats with an electorate of 3,500 and climbing. Im sure you can see where Im going..........

I think you should be going back to school - 2+2 here seems to equal 450. Thats some injudicious double counting there. The voting numbers for the gasboard have to be measured against the 20000 stakeholders brent believes aren't represented by the Trust. A strange notion as Trust members will also be Senior Greens Season Ticket holders Green Taverners etc etc.

If the voting numbers aren't in excess of Trust members by a goodly way it would have failed to be anymore representative than the Trust. In actuality as it's been widely promoted by the Club and has the Clubs Board and Club Presidents full backing and has no active financial opt in it needs to really pull in the punters to be deemed a success.

knecht and Dougie

You are both entitled to your opinion as indeed am I, you are both entrenched in your view and that is your perogative.I wish you well trying to find out who the other candidates are let alone why. Thats not a challenge (well OK a bit of one) but besides Jon they are keeping it secret.

The PASB is coming and the Trust are full party to it, so please do not delude yourselves.

Im putting you both down as dont knows

Deluded - strange choice of words

If you are alluding to a Trust slate of nominees I'm very much against that. But I can understand them engaging in the process. it would be cutting off their nose etc if they didn't. I suspect if brent hadn't cut across the trust elections with the gasboard formation and they had had room to grow without the 'threat' of the gasboard and a year down the line of finding their feet in peace time things would have been different and their tactics and response would be different.

As for a 'don't now' I'll be using by membership to vote for 'none of the above' in big letters with a green marker pen (or cut out letters from the Herald so no one knows its me)

Whilst I started more in favour of the Trust but happy to be shown the benefits of the PASB (indeed, if you remember, I even sought out your comments personally, Tony), so many things have gone on and so many things have been said that I have certainly become more and more entrenched in my antipathy towards the PASB. The mud-slinging from the powers that be on pasoti; the subterfuges to bring the Trust into disrepute; the inability of almost anyone to give any sustained or coherent reasoning as to why the PASB should exist rather than the Trust doing the same job but better; the incompetence of its initial setting up; the nagging suspicion that there are Machiavellian antics going on behind the scenes (maybe my paranoia ... but it has certainly been fed...); the nonsense of two bodies doing essentially similar jobs.

I actually haven't been wanting to find out who has been choosing to stand. All comes to whoever waits. I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

One less item on the Gasboards agenda


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

Those buses aint such a good deal though.They aint free anymore,nor would a donation be sufficient.If you miss the bus on the way home,and boy do they leave sharpish then I believe vyou have lost your money as the tickets are non transferable.Although they dont mention that.Much better value to be had if going to Argyle by bus is a dayrider ticket which gives you more flexibilty.Buses would be convenient for midweek matches but again no mention of that.

tonycholwell wrote:

For the sake of brevity Tringy I will not quote the whole of your post or indeed mine.

"For your part, you have always been willing to debate with me and I trust that your intentions are genuine and that you truly believe you can help the club progress.
Only time will tell I suppose and if it makes you feel good, why not ?"

My intentions are always genuine as I cant be bothered doing other than that and Ive always enjoyed our tussles, which have normally been good tempered.

I do believe I have the skills to help hold the Board to account and in doing so progress.

Oh and to Mock, he is right, Cholwell is in NE Somerset which if you look under my screen name you will see it says NE Somerset:)

We call that a clue!

Is Cholwell far from Yate Tony? My mate runs Stanshawe Court, big pub in Yate, next week they have an evening with Gordon Banks there. Not going myself, if it was someone decent like Alan Rough I would.

A bit of a hoot that .... god bless the new Citybus.
It reminds me of that doyen of Pasoti and financial advisor to Kagami, when he proudly anounced negotiated match day train fares to Home Park up from Cornwall, that were actually no cheaper than a ticket fans could purchase with a railcard.
Everything is sold as a bargain these days.