Supporters Board Election Update

Greenjock wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

To be fair, Jock, I've just read Miles' statement on pasoti and it's more forward-looking, thoughtful and innovative than anything Tony or Jon has managed to come up with. Plus, Mr Bidgood clearly is a strong supporter of the Trust. He's certainly managed to put more good (realistic) ideas into one brief statement on pasoti than I've seen from the other candidates combined.

Although the fact that Jameson seem such an enthusiatic supporter of his is enough to give me pause for thought.

I thought so to Andy. Very good statement he has released, and as far as I know he has not be tainted with association to any of the main perpetrators of mischief we know about, along with Jon B on that, but unfortunately having Lee Jameson throw his support behind Miles may well be a hinderance, if this thing ever actually gets off the ground that is

Now Newell applauding his post

And there was me thinking Newell, Postey et all were in the Cholwell camp. Mind you it's not like anything they say can be taken seriously, plenty of scope for the Deepthroat boys to be throwing a spanner in the works and backstabbing again.

Since there's six places up for election (I think), presumably those lucky enough to get a vote will be able to choose more than one?

What amazes me is this board is supposed to be the board representing all Argyle fans yet it appears that not all Argyle fans will get to vote!

Jobs for the boys and super ego's with stupid beards who then sell out for a parking space.

What percentage of the 4,000 various membership deals are junior ones, and what is the minimum voting age for the election (there seems to be an air of secrecy over the breakdown of the membership packages sold so far - no sign of the promised transparency).

Anyone know if the meeting with supporters groups went ahead yesterday and if so was anything resolved.

It seemingly went ahead. Waiting to here how they will choose rep, confirmation of membership numbers and a statement of each groups financial position.

I just find the whole thing ridiculous.

It's been months and months in the offing, yet stumbles along from one embarrassment to the next. Dates and venues changing constantly, vague details of voting rules given sporadically, the handing out of literature to make non-internet using fans aware of the whole thing was a complete disaster. No women or youngsters even put their name forward, although one woman has now declared an interest after the deadline for nominations. She's a friend of Ian Newells though so she might be allowed to stand unopposed!

One candidate, Tony Cholwell, has been accused by Ian Newell of being the PI hired to track me down by Lee Jameson, who has just been re-elected as chair of the PASLB, who are one of the groups involved in the process. Tony Cholwell denies this but Lee Jameson doesn't, which seems to make Ian Newell half right and nobody can deny that Ian Newell has a certain amount of influence on Pasoti, the largest Internet fans forum, and now Newell and Jameson appear to throw their support behind another candidate!

The whole process has been overseen by the Club President, Chris Webb, who is well versed in these elections, yet the PASB seems to stand for Piss up in A Brewery or something, and lo and behold Chris Webb, Ian Newell and Lee Jameson are all friendly on twatter again today, and all the time in real life, and Newell and Tony Cholwell are still very friendly despite the allegations, anyone have a camera they can take to WSM, yes matey, my pal Tony will oblige

If I were slightly more cynical, I could believe that this Brent inspired idea, is being purposely turned into a joke by certain people, so that eventually Mr Brent, who also offers The Trust a 20% share in the club, for no place on the board, for a ridiculous £400k, so in the end Mr Brent can publicly declare he's had enough of the dithering and withdraws his offers, and it can all be blamed on the fans.

Job Done

And the nominated Trust attack dog the ever questioning rule loving Leigh Rapson hasn't said raised a peep about the omni shambles. Go figure.

Dougie wrote:

And the nominated Trust attack dog the ever questioning rule loving Leigh Rapson hasn't said raised a peep about the omni shambles. Go figure.

It all doesn't add up. Mr Rapson, 500 questions a day to the Trust Board, isn't interested in this, like 99% of us though I suppose, and one candidate being discredited by an influential Pasoti, and Deepthroat, figure, another Deepthroat figure also discredited, all great mates with the Club President who is overseeing proceedings, and yet the 2 people accused by Ian Newell are quite happy about it all and still they are all thick as thieves.

It stinks to high heaven, just like the Trust attacks did earlier this year.

As such a great Union man and Union rep, you would think that Chris would have some concerns about the election, but he is happy to associate himself with all of the old gang again.

Dougie wrote:

And the nominated Trust attack dog the ever questioning rule loving Leigh Rapson hasn't said raised a peep about the omni shambles. Go figure.

That was never part of his brief.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Dougie wrote:

And the nominated Trust attack dog the ever questioning rule loving Leigh Rapson hasn't said raised a peep about the omni shambles. Go figure.

That was never part of his brief.

It's not his turn. Otherwise it always looks like just one person is bothered. They have to keep changing the names, to protect the innocent

This isn't surprising then:

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

Greenjock wrote:

This isn't surprising then:

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

Yes it is! That is absolutely shocking!!!

Im more convinced than ever that we need a single Trust rather than 2 opposing systems.

Rickler wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

This isn't surprising then:

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

Yes it is! That is absolutely shocking!!!

I meant the lack of interest in it all hasn't surprised me Rickler, just like Hairy J's poll started on Thursday, which up to now has had a whole 18 votes with a simple yes or no required. Nobody other than a handful of candidates is interested, supporters clubs, women and children included.

A total farce.

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

And for one of the most important aspects of the GasBoard, the part that was meant to deliver more all embracing fan representation c.James Brent, the Board sent along a teacher to facilitate (Wot no Prof or Pres). In fairness the whole bang-shoot does have the air of a school counsel so sending in the deputy head seems about right.

So when JB said that the GASBoard was going to be more representative than the Trust, did he really envisage 10 candidates, 4 supporters groups (one of which was The Trust) and only a dozen hardy souls on pasoti commiting to actually voting?

It seems from the brief notes on pasoti that even the Prof and The Supreme Leader have, understandably, found better things to do with their time.

Is the PASB now going to be scrapped as it clearly does not represent all supporters and has a lot less interest than the trust?

Andy_Symons wrote:

Certainly with the GASBoard being set up to scrutinise the inner workings of the club, there needs to be from the candidates plenty of examples of how they feel they have the qualities, experience and qualifications necessary to do this. It's my view that, in terms of communication with the fanbase, feedback and so on, that needs to be a collective enterprise - we as supporters need to be able to contact reps as and when necessary, not in a way that an individual Board rep sees fit, but in a way that best suits the needs of the fans.

The problem is, Jon, that individual candidates are free to campaign however they see fit ( and for what it's worth I think you should be making more noise about the liaison work you mentioned that you did with the Home Office in a similar set up. Oh, and keep saying how you'd be happy to Chair the GAS board - that seems to get under the skin of at least one of your opponents) so when Tony posts some of his less well thought out schemes and plans, I think we, as potential voters, are entitled to pick his Campaign News bulletins apart.

Thanks Mr S - I'll heed your counsel.

Just picking up on the debate around Colleges & Uni's a page or two back.

I think we need to bear in mind that each Further & Higher Education provider (FE & HE) is effectively a stand alone business whose overarching need - at the end of the day - is to make money. This is particularly so given the funding cuts brought about since the comprehensive spending review.

In my local day job, I have met with all of our local F & HEs & it is absolutely clear that they would all look for a tangible return on investment with regard to any partnership they enter in to.

Remember that Argyle's business reputation has been significantly damaged in recent years, so it's folly to think that simple association with the name of Plymouth Argyle would be seen as a good benefit in kind.

I've got a coffee planned with a chap who until recently ran the Open University in a couple of weeks time (& is now the Chief Exec of the Institute of Leadership & Management). I'll get his take on it.

The kind of initiative shown by Jon B should be shown by the club - not relying on volunteers. This club is no longer in administration and hasn't been for nearly a year and should have its act together by now. The staff are being paid. Who exactly is running PAFC. This is in no way an attack on JonB who is obviously capable, tenacious and articulate. But in the current confused state of affairs, what happens if someone acts in a way the board don't approve of.

Dingle wrote:

The kind of initiative shown by Jon B should be shown by the club - not relying on volunteers. This club is no longer in administration and hasn't been for nearly a year and should have its act together by now. The staff are being paid. Who exactly is running PAFC. This is in no way an attack on JonB who is obviously capable, tenacious and articulate. But in the current confused state of affairs, what happens if someone acts in a way the board don't approve of.

I'm assuming they'll have written terms and conditions on conduct that they'll have to sign up to and any breech of that will result in...

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

from PL2 3DQ on Pasoti, in defence of the lack of attendees at the Supporters Group meeting this weekend:

Quote :

You're right about the lack of apology, that's rude in the extreme but a Saturday morning meeting in the summer when the Olympics has just started (and the weather changing for the better) was always going to struggle to attract attendees.

So why not ask which dipstick decided to schedule the meeting for then? I'm not sure the weather can be blamed, but if you're going to offer up that little group of excuses, asking who decided the meeting should be held then, and why, is probably a good idea.

I also remember several Trust Board meetings I attended where Board members who couldn't make it to the venue participated via a conference call facility (organised by The Supreme Leader, who was on the Board at the time) . Surely that could have been organised for this,too, given the distances that some groups would have had to travel in order to attend.

Having a meeting in the Summer was crazy - all meetings should be organised for the winter or Autumn months but not in the run-up to Xmas when everyone is busy. And not just after the New Year when people are recovering. And not if there isn't an "R" in the month. If the forecast says 'sunny' that should be avoided as should occasions when heavy rain is forecast. Evenings are obviously right out unless the meeting is in a pub and avoids the broadcast of Eastenders. I also think that meetings when England are playing aren't a good idea. And some people aren't good at mornings. Sundays should be avoided for obvious reasons as should afternoons when Argyle are at home. When Argyle are away isn't really a good idea either as some people like to follow them or, if not, they go shopping. During the working day is obviously a non-starter.

Otherwise, I'm sure there are lots of occasions when a more convenient time could have been chosen.

Maybe it's just the fact that the the whole flawed idea and process is a pointless waste of time and effort is gaining traction amongst those previously enamoured with all things Brenty.

Or maybe it was moved to a Saturday following one of the Superfans bitching about The Trust AGM being held midweek? The same Superfan who cried off ill on Saturday?

As the Pasoti thread adds more fuel to the fire that the PASB is a total waste of time

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

One of the reasons we may not have heard from all the candidates is that I heard on Saturday that one person put their name forward thinking it was for the Supporters group section rather than the individual ballot.

For Christ's sake what an absolute balls up from start to finish!