Supporters Board election

Posts : 752 Join date : 2012-01-23

Why is it taking so long to announce the names of the individual candidates standing for this. The deadline passed days ago.

Could it be that despite assurances to the contrary by The President, there are not enough names to fill the spaces.

No sign yet of those who continually criticised the Trust over the running of the Trust election commenting on this shambles.

Guest

Dingle wrote:: Why is it taking so long to announce the names of the individual candidates standing for this. The deadline passed days ago.

Could it be that despite assurances to the contrary by The President, there are not enough names to fill the spaces.

No sign yet of those who continually criticised the Trust over the running of the Trust election commenting on this shambles.

A good question Dingle and this morning I have asked the same question on PASOTI.

It is clearly not because of lack of candidates, by my reckoning, for the 4 general places there will be between 10-12 candidates, depending on how many the Trust rustled up at the AGM. (I heard 4 were collecting signatures)

It is difficult to conclude anything other than a continuing shambles and leaving the process open to gerrymandering.

Posts : 3191 Join date : 2011-12-02

Surely it's not the way James Brent likes to do business. How interested is he? He doesn't appear by his actions to be bothered (and we've seen what he's like when he is bothered).

Guest

Dougie wrote:: Surely it's not the way James Brent likes to do business. How interested is he? He doesn't appear by his actions to be bothered (and we've seen what he's like when he is bothered).

To be honest Dougie I shouldn't think its in his "to do" list for today.

I asked him a similar question last season and he said he didnt want to be seen influencing the outcome so has kept out of the process.

I think with hindsight it would have been better had a more experienced hand been on the tiller to guide the process. To date it can best be described as shambolic.

Posts : 3191 Join date : 2011-12-02

More experienced than The Prof and The Pres and all the great and the good who attended the meetings?

Posts : 752 Join date : 2012-01-23

It just demonstrates what an impossible act the supporters board concept is. On one hand, it is donated to the supporters by the owner, then he has to take a step back from its actual organisation to show that it is transparent and unbiased.

Who exactly is in charge of its day to day running? Is it attached to Supporters Direct (or another body). Where is the constitution? Where are the election rules? Why the secrecy over candidates - why is it taking a week to get this out to the big wide world.

If it ever does get off the ground, I'm certain that it will have no teeth whatsoever. All decisions will be made by James Brent. If the PASBoard or whatever its called acts in a way he doesn't like, then he will either ignore it or take it away.

If James Brent had been at all interested in true fan involvement, rather than appeasing the select few, then he would have worked with the existing Fans Trust.

Guest

Dingle wrote:: It just demonstrates what an impossible act the supporters board concept is. On one hand, it is donated to the supporters by the owner, then he has to take a step back from its actual organisation to show that it is transparent and unbiased.

Who exactly is in charge of its day to day running? Is it attached to Supporters Direct (or another body). Where is the constitution? Where are the election rules? Why the secrecy over candidates - why is it taking a week to get this out to the big wide world.

If it ever does get off the ground, I'm certain that it will have no teeth whatsoever. All decisions will be made by James Brent. If the PASBoard or whatever its called acts in a way he doesn't like, then he will either ignore it or take it away.

If James Brent had been at all interested in true fan involvement, rather than appeasing the select few, then he would have worked with the existing Fans Trust.

I think you need to address most of your questions to the President, Dingle.

However your ability to see into the future has been noted by me at least. Why are members of the Trust "true fans" and the majority of fans who are not, errr, not true fans by implication. I a not so sure who the "Few" are, perhaps you could clarify.

One small point, as JB owns the club it is likely his will will prevail, it will be the duty of anyone engaging with him to negotiate to modify/change his default position. The PASB is likely to have all/most Trust members on its Board, so Im not so sure what your gripe is.

Subject: Re: Supporters Board election Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:38 pm

Dingle wrote:: It just demonstrates what an impossible act the supporters board concept is. On one hand, it is donated to the supporters by the owner, then he has to take a step back from its actual organisation to show that it is transparent and unbiased.

Who exactly is in charge of its day to day running? Is it attached to Supporters Direct (or another body). Where is the constitution? Where are the election rules? Why the secrecy over candidates - why is it taking a week to get this out to the big wide world.

If it ever does get off the ground, I'm certain that it will have no teeth whatsoever. All decisions will be made by James Brent. If the PASBoard or whatever its called acts in a way he doesn't like, then he will either ignore it or take it away.

If James Brent had been at all interested in true fan involvement, rather than appeasing the select few, then he would have worked with the existing Fans Trust.

That would be far too obvious and give the fans an independent voice.

This is just jobs for the boys. Those most compliant or adept at fundraising will get the biggest hats.

Posts : 752 Join date : 2012-01-23

Tony, my 'gripe' is that there was already a truly democratic fans organisation in place. ALL fans could have stood for the Trust election if they chose - and if successful in the election could have expressed their concerns from within at the direction the Trust was going.

Posts : 3191 Join date : 2011-12-02

Of course all club members could have been given trust membership as part of the package (with opt out for naysayers and those not wanting to be associated with the deluded, partisan or waifs and strays). The fee could have been part of the price (with an opt out to charity for naysayers and those not wanting to be associated with the deluded, partisan or waifs and strays).

The Trust would have then been all inclusive from Season ticket holders to pay on the day (if they choose to join) to locals and exiles. Thus at a stroke negating JB's main objection.

The increased income to the Trust (assuming there are not too many naysayers and those not wanting to be associated with the deluded, partisan or waifs and strays) would be a nice little down deposit of buying some shares.

Probably not clever enough idea though.

Posts : 752 Join date : 2012-01-23

Dougie, I think the reason this plan was not adopted is contained in your 3rd para.

Guest

Guys, its all ifs buts and maybes and its also history, because there will be a PASB.

Im not sure how many times I have said this but I will try again:

1. The Trust fully engaged in the propsals and Im not aware of any member raising it at the AGM that they should disengage.

2. The Trust will probably end up running it all after the election/selection process the way it now pans out as they are the only group who have the resources to run a campaign.

I hope that people will examine and hold to account not only the Board but the PASB as well. But you dont have to be on the PASB to do that.

Posts : 3191 Join date : 2011-12-02

1. Good job too but what choice do they have? Fait accompli from Mr Brent backed up with him releasing a Board member to direct it. They would have been fools to go against it. Engaging with it is hardly the same as a ringing endorsement for it.

2. I hope they don't spend a penny on electioneering on behalf of favoured Trust members going for the individual Gasboard places. As it is I suspect the only place anyone has to have a presence is on Pasoti and to have bought a round or two whilst for a few well placed figures attending a Fanfest.

Posts : 3191 Join date : 2011-12-02

p.s. I propose setting up a board to examine and hold to account the Gasboard - Gasboard Lite or Gasboard 2.0. It will meet the day after Gasboard meets and start demanding the minutes of the Gasboard. If the minutes include the words pasties buses or experts it will demand the immediate dissallution of the Gasboard.

Guest

tonycholwell wrote:

Dingle wrote:: It just demonstrates what an impossible act the supporters board concept is. On one hand, it is donated to the supporters by the owner, then he has to take a step back from its actual organisation to show that it is transparent and unbiased.

Who exactly is in charge of its day to day running? Is it attached to Supporters Direct (or another body). Where is the constitution? Where are the election rules? Why the secrecy over candidates - why is it taking a week to get this out to the big wide world.

If it ever does get off the ground, I'm certain that it will have no teeth whatsoever. All decisions will be made by James Brent. If the PASBoard or whatever its called acts in a way he doesn't like, then he will either ignore it or take it away.

If James Brent had been at all interested in true fan involvement, rather than appeasing the select few, then he would have worked with the existing Fans Trust.

I think you need to address most of your questions to the President, Dingle.

However your ability to see into the future has been noted by me at least. Why are members of the Trust "true fans" and the majority of fans who are not, errr, not true fans by implication. I a not so sure who the "Few" are, perhaps you could clarify.

One small point, as JB owns the club it is likely his will will prevail, it will be the duty of anyone engaging with him to negotiate to modify/change his default position. The PASB is likely to have all/most Trust members on its Board, so Im not so sure what your gripe is.

Tony, I think you've misread that bit from Dingle. I might be wrong but I read it as true "fan involvement" not "true fan" involvement. I'd like to think all fans are equal.

Guest

tonycholwell wrote:: Guys, its all ifs buts and maybes and its also history, because there will be a PASB.

Im not sure how many times I have said this but I will try again:

1. The Trust fully engaged in the propsals and Im not aware of any member raising it at the AGM that they should disengage.

Actually, Tony, at the Trust AGM The Supreme Leader was passionate about the Trust running a slate of candidates so that, in his words, The Trust could render the GAS Board irrelevent within the first year. Not exactly a proposal for disengagement, but as near as damn it.

2. The Trust will probably end up running it all after the election/selection process the way it now pans out as they are the only group who have the resources to run a campaign.

After all your enthusiastic backing for the GAS Board, this isn't you throwing in the towel is it Tony? Or just getting your excuses in early ?

I hope that people will examine and hold to account not only the Board but the PASB as well. But you dont have to be on the PASB to do that.

FWIW I was one of those collecting signatures at the Trust AGM, but, in a rare moment of agreement with The Supreme Leader, I too am disappointed that the Trust didn't take a real lead on this and organise a slate of candidates well in advance of the close of nominations. As a result, I haven't submitted my nomination form. I should apologise to those that were prepared to nominate me (and it was a wide range of names who were prepared to back me - thank you all), but it was always my view that I would run as part of a Trust slate, but not on an 'individual' ticket. If the trust had put out a call when the nomination process opened for trust members to put themselves forward, i'd have been all for it, but they seemed to drag their feet on this - understandable given all the other issues that the Trust Board has had to deal with, but disappointing nonetheless.

And for the benefit of certain other posters looking in : No, this is not an attack on the Trust Board, who I think are doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. I'm mildly irked, that's all.

Posts : 3191 Join date : 2011-12-02

Sorry to be thick but is it being said that there was a serious suggestion that the Trust willfully and purposely work in a way to make the Gasboard obselete.

In my mind, and not being at all convinced about the need for the Gasboard at all - nada - never, the Trsut might as well sign its own death warrant if it followed that course. If those circumstances pertained I think Id leave theTrust and become Chowellike in my opposition to it.

And this was a view forwarded/proposed by The President? Surely I've misunderstood because they would have to strain things with Brent.

Guest

My understanding was that there had been a suggestion - NOT from the the Trust board - that enough Trust members would stand so as to effectively ensure a strong Trust presence on the GASB (aka PASB). This seemed acceptable to me. If they got the votes, they were in. If they didn't, they didn't. All above board and democratic. The electorate would have spoken.

Why would Mr Brent have any objection? Unless, of course, if he didn't want a powerful Trust anyway.

Guest

Dougie wrote:: Sorry to be thick but is it being said that there was a serious suggestion that the Trust willfully and purposely work in a way to make the Gasboard obselete.

In my mind, and not being at all convinced about the need for the Gasboard at all - nada - never, the Trsut might as well sign its own death warrant if it followed that course. If those circumstances pertained I think Id leave theTrust and become Chowellike in my opposition to it.

And this was a view forwarded/proposed by The President? Surely I've misunderstood because they would have to strain things with Brent.

I think The Supreme Leader was suggesting that the Trust should have organised in such a way as to dominate the GAS Board to the point where it became indistinguishable from the Trust, thus rendering the GAS Board superfluous. That's my take on what he said, and it was the one thing he said in his little rant at the Trust AGM that I agreed with.

Guest

I see on pasoti that a meeting for "supporters' groups" has been called to allocate places. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does this mean that the Trust is to be excluded from this meeting?

Guest

Doesn't name the supporters groups though which is a shame.Plymouth Branch,Cornish Branch and London Branch,Yes.. but who else?...North Devon,East Sussex,Midlands,Northern,South Wales,Those poor buggers trapped in Avon?

Guest

Andy_Symons wrote:: I think The Supreme Leader was suggesting that the Trust should have organised in such a way as to dominate the GAS Board to the point where it became indistinguishable from the Trust, thus rendering the GAS Board superfluous. That's my take on what he said, and it was the one thing he said in his little rant at the Trust AGM that I agreed with.

Well he would wouldn't he...he's Harry's President It's no secret this guy who dumped the Trust quicker than a quick thing has said next to nothing to stop a naiscent Trust being delivered on a plate as an in-house supporter of the owners and totally dependent on them to the tune of 400K, with no voting rights whatsoever. great deal !!
Few fans understand the need for this gasboard thing, and lets face it, more and more supporter organisations are saying NO to the Gasboard... even the new 6month old flag wavers. Why would a serious Trust even entertain the idea ?
Interesting times, and I'm glad this Trust is taking it's time and a long term view on matters. Just where has Harry Corbett dreamed all this up ? or is it him that dreamed it up in the first place ? ... it's all very odd, and the Trust are right to be super cautious... who cares what the big hat says ?

Guest

knecht wrote:: I see on pasoti that a meeting for "supporters' groups" has been called to allocate places. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does this mean that the Trust is to be excluded from this meeting?

No, they headthe list of those invited

Posts : 46 Join date : 2012-05-16 Location : Plymouth

knecht wrote:: I see on pasoti that a meeting for "supporters' groups" has been called to allocate places. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does this mean that the Trust is to be excluded from this meeting?

I was under the impression that the election of the remaining places on the PASB are elected through a general ballot. The Pres is talking about allocation of places or am I reading this wrong?

Guest

Greenrod wrote:

knecht wrote:: I see on pasoti that a meeting for "supporters' groups" has been called to allocate places. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does this mean that the Trust is to be excluded from this meeting?

I was under the impression that the election of the remaining places on the PASB are elected through a general ballot. The Pres is talking about allocation of places or am I reading this wrong?

You're reading it wrong!

6 places for ballot including one woman and one young person.

6 places for supporters groups

» Supporters Board Election Update
» Supporters Board Update
» Supporters Board Article..
» GAS / Supporters Board - a request
» Supporters Board Update / Nomination form