Rochdale hospitality

Greens On Screen is an incredible site - and I have just seen an incredible sight on it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does anyone recognise the gentleman sat next to IJN????

Do my eyes deceive me?

It is Vice President of the PASB and erstwhile ATD contributor Jon Beck enjoying the full monty JB/IJN Jamboy Directors Box and Boardroom experience at Rochdale.

Leads to so many questions about the PASB and confirms rumours about the PASB being in the pocket of the Club and further confirms the AFT as the one and only true independent voice of the supporters.

JonB, Damon, Tim Chown anything to say?

Lots to say - but think I will say it to Jon's face.

I'm hesitant to criticise on the basis of just a photo...could be plenty of reasons to be there which don't involve being in people's pockets or on the end of their strings. And just as I dislike that some have been told not to post on ATD, I wouldn't like to say that others can't do as they like elsewhere either.

Not a pair I'd have expected to see next to one another, though...

I understand your point Mock but given Jon's day job it does seem an unwise freebie to accept.

We are at a critical point in the HHP development plan where there is a big divide between what Akkeron want and what the fans want and therefore the mandate for the PASB. To have one of the more vocal and well known PASB members accepting a freebie in the directors box alongside Newell and Jones (the same Jones who keeps dossiers on fans) "looks" suspicious.

Jon will know that something looking suspicious when accepting hospitality is bad news. Even in my occupation we have to list the freebies we both give and receive to avoid accusations of bias.

If the Psab Aren't Poodles then they need to man up a bit and do some straight talking, having a fans representative board that says nowt is no good, I mean what's the point? As for the photo? Doesn't mean a lot, but could be the reason they are toothless.

Hi all,

Yes, as the first person sat in my seat, it did bring a wry smile to my face when others sat down (& people I've not spoken to more than a dozen times in my life). My 'friendship' with ATD was mentioned, although not by the person next to me.

At the risk of sounding defensive, I did write quite a lot about this type of thing when I sought people's votes (on here as well as elsewhere) an eternity ago - I haven't changed my position.

Jon

Dingle wrote:

Greens On Screen is an incredible site - and I have just seen an incredible sight on it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does anyone recognise the gentleman sat next to IJN????

Do my eyes deceive me?

It is Vice President of the PASB and erstwhile ATD contributor Jon Beck enjoying the full monty JB/IJN Jamboy Directors Box and Boardroom experience at Rochdale.

Leads to so many questions about the PASB and confirms rumours about the PASB being in the pocket of the Club and further confirms the AFT as the one and only true independent voice of the supporters.

JonB, Damon, Tim Chown anything to say?

What's the problem ?.........isn't PASB a vehicle set up by James Brent......how could they ever bite the hand that feeds them....an organization that has no authority in the eyes of independent fans.......thankfully there is another fans organization...AFT.

I really don't like Brent's Argyle and all it represents.

They play on the blind passion of dimwits and bully or cajole those viewed as potential threats to their position and self interest.

Fans' representation my arse !

PASB was set up by JB but it certainly doesn't feed us. There is a healthy independence of the Board by many of the PASB members - not just those representing AFT.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

PASB was set up by JB but it certainly doesn't feed us. There is a healthy independence of the Board by many of the PASB members - not just those representing AFT.

I'm glad to hear that Damon.....it just looks iffy in my view.

Jon,

Where you sit in the ground shouldn't and for me doesn't matter more than where you stand on the key positions. I suspect that your calmness and integrity is valued by PASB colleagues and Argyle alike.

However, haing a look back on what you said back at the election time, I'm struck by your vision for the PASB.

You said (my empahsis in text):

Quote :

In relation to what the PASB should do or be, I am clear.

For me the PASB should be largely about corporate governance. I know this sounds fancy, but in reality I would like it to act akin to the governors of a school, effectively keeping the performance of the executive team monitored, with an appropriate reporting regime in place.

We do need to put some thought; take some advice about this. The Chairman & Board have an 'unswerving' legal responsibility regarding the operation of the company; it is their role to hold the executive to account & we must take care that the involvement of the PASB doesn't have an impact upon these statutory obligations.

Therefore we must take care with the detail when using sound bites such as 'we're going to hold the club to account'.

At a relatively simplistic level, I would seek to 'measure' the performance & decision-making of the club against two high level benchmarks - a set of club-owned values (one may be around ethics; eg to use local suppliers damaged by our Administration wherever practicable). The second may be to check expenditure & income against other comparable clubs, again as an example.

On that vision and on that measure we're nowhere, are we? Nigh on seven months after you wrote that and that performance measurement, that reporting regime, those "club-owned values" have moved in tiny increment if they have moved at all. And you could make a fair case to say some of them have moved backwards, given the apparent lack of any club-to-fan engagement in the earlybird season ticket prices and the schmozzle over the Grandstand.

I've banged on for far too long now about the missing-in-action Terms Of References, so I don't intend to say any more about it (frankly I'm as jaded about that as I am with virtually every element of Argyle at the moment) and I recognise that my track record on the Trust board can for a variety of reasons be called in to question, but having said that...

...is it really good enough that *this* is what fan engagement and corporate responsibility/accountability have ended up as?

JonB wrote:

Hi all,

Yes, as the first person sat in my seat, it did bring a wry smile to my face when others sat down (& people I've not spoken to more than a dozen times in my life). My 'friendship' with ATD was mentioned, although not by the person next to me.

At the risk of sounding defensive, I did write quite a lot about this type of thing when I sought people's votes (on here as well as elsewhere) an eternity ago - I haven't changed my position.

Jon

ATD does have some impact then

Will you bid us freaks n weirdos adieu formally, when the time comes ?

Gareth - working at mo but will answer later as this remains a 'live' issue for me.

Tring - of course! (although as I said to someone on Sat, it does intrigue me how I have managed to develop an on-line persona whereby both 'sides' think I'm a mole for the other). I'm happy to remain my own man & defend/lambast both AFT & Pasoti as matters arise - both can be good, both can be the opposite. Looking at this site, it's got the 'rogueishness' of RotG which I love; the bit that i hate is the personal vilification of people that goes way too far at times (as I always say, in my opinion).

This has been the area that has led to me 'using' the site less frequently at times - it makes me 'feel' deeply uncomfortable.

JonB wrote:

Gareth - working at mo but will answer later as this remains a 'live' issue for me.

Tring - of course! (although as I said to someone on Sat, it does intrigue me how I have managed to develop an on-line persona whereby both 'sides' think I'm a mole for the other). I'm happy to remain my own man & defend/lambast both AFT & Pasoti as matters arise - both can be good, both can be the opposite. Looking at this site, it's got the 'rogueishness' of RotG which I love; the bit that i hate is the personal vilification of people that goes way too far at times (as I always say, in my opinion).

This has been the area that has led to me 'using' the site less frequently at times - it makes me 'feel' deeply uncomfortable.

Fair enough. So you don't think the personal villification of those who deceive and bully others in order to control fan opinion is warranted ?

Should we try to persuade them to behave. Is that what you are doing ?

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Jon,

Where you sit in the ground shouldn't and for me doesn't matter more than where you stand on the key positions. I suspect that your calmness and integrity is valued by PASB colleagues and Argyle alike.

However, haing a look back on what you said back at the election time, I'm struck by your vision for the PASB.

You said (my empahsis in text):

Quote :

In relation to what the PASB should do or be, I am clear.

For me the PASB should be largely about corporate governance. I know this sounds fancy, but in reality I would like it to act akin to the governors of a school, effectively keeping the performance of the executive team monitored, with an appropriate reporting regime in place.

We do need to put some thought; take some advice about this. The Chairman & Board have an 'unswerving' legal responsibility regarding the operation of the company; it is their role to hold the executive to account & we must take care that the involvement of the PASB doesn't have an impact upon these statutory obligations.

Therefore we must take care with the detail when using sound bites such as 'we're going to hold the club to account'.

At a relatively simplistic level, I would seek to 'measure' the performance & decision-making of the club against two high level benchmarks - a set of club-owned values (one may be around ethics; eg to use local suppliers damaged by our Administration wherever practicable). The second may be to check expenditure & income against other comparable clubs, again as an example.

On that vision and on that measure we're nowhere, are we? Nigh on seven months after you wrote that and that performance measurement, that reporting regime, those "club-owned values" have moved in tiny increment if they have moved at all. And you could make a fair case to say some of them have moved backwards, given the apparent lack of any club-to-fan engagement in the earlybird season ticket prices and the schmozzle over the Grandstand.

I've banged on for far too long now about the missing-in-action Terms Of References, so I don't intend to say any more about it (frankly I'm as jaded about that as I am with virtually every element of Argyle at the moment) and I recognise that my track record on the Trust board can for a variety of reasons be called in to question, but having said that...

...is it really good enough that *this* is what fan engagement and corporate responsibility/accountability have ended up as?

Gareth the ToR has been in the hands of the Club since the 2nd of March. Without them PASB members are shooting from the hip. At one end of the scale JonB and his corporate governance route, at the other me wanting to hold the Board to account on behalf of the fans. Would it be too cynical to suggest that the longer the ToR remain unsigned the longer the PASB remains toothless?

In case you get to read this before my email Jon just one question -

Who invited you and why?

That's 2 questions!!!

I think some people would die of shock were they to go to some long established football forums of various teams.

ATD is like a tea dance at the Women's Institute compared to some of them. Football forums should reflect terrace culture IMO. Otherwise, they're largely dull.

JonB wrote:

Hi all,

Yes, as the first person sat in my seat, it did bring a wry smile to my face when others sat down (& people I've not spoken to more than a dozen times in my life). My 'friendship' with ATD was mentioned, although not by the person next to me.

At the risk of sounding defensive, I did write quite a lot about this type of thing when I sought people's votes (on here as well as elsewhere) an eternity ago - I haven't changed my position.

Jon

Does anyone understand Jon's reply? Maybe it's just me but I've read it over and over but I'm still none the wiser

It's a worrying photo whatever the reason for Jon's appearance in the directors box.

Also Jon can you clarify who has been questioning you posting on ATD? Surely thats prerogative? Or are we at the point where not only are ATD posters not welcome on the coach paid for by the players on Saturday, the president, greens on screen and the GT'S don't consider us fans worthy of being communicated with?

We already know that Mr Brent and Mr Jones aren't major fans of this site so I won't be contributing towards sponsoring a player if the idea is proposed again.

We definitely are naaaat praaaaper faaans in everyone's eyes it seems.

Greenjock wrote:

JonB wrote:

Hi all,

Yes, as the first person sat in my seat, it did bring a wry smile to my face when others sat down (& people I've not spoken to more than a dozen times in my life). My 'friendship' with ATD was mentioned, although not by the person next to me.

At the risk of sounding defensive, I did write quite a lot about this type of thing when I sought people's votes (on here as well as elsewhere) an eternity ago - I haven't changed my position.

Jon

Does anyone understand Jon's reply? Maybe it's just me but I've read it over and over but I'm still none the wiser

It's a worrying photo whatever the reason for Jon's appearance in the directors box.

Also Jon can you clarify who has been questioning you posting on ATD? Surely thats prerogative? Or are we at the point where not only are ATD posters not welcome on the coach paid for by the players on Saturday, the president, greens on screen and the GT'S don't consider us fans worthy of being communicated with?

We already know that Mr Brent and Mr Jones aren't major fans of this site so I won't be contributing towards sponsoring a player if the idea is proposed again.

We definitely are naaaat praaaaper faaans in everyone's eyes it seems.

I'm still regretting coughing up £50 last time. Never again, until the bad guys have gone.

I think the only person delighted to see that photo would be the porcine one.

Directors Box photos are a regular thing on GoS, Ian would have had that in mind when he chose who to sit next to. He'd know there'd be an 'eyebrows raised' reaction on here.

picture removed as its far too camp

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

PASB was set up by JB but it certainly doesn't feed us. There is a healthy independence of the Board by many of the PASB members - not just those representing AFT.

Damon...completely disagree with you on that one.You may be independent of the current regime,but a lot of the PASB are quite happy to be at close quarters.As has been shown by the GOS photo,to name but one instance.GOS snappers always,always take a match day photo of the director's box.

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

Jon,

Where you sit in the ground shouldn't and for me doesn't matter more than where you stand on the key positions. I suspect that your calmness and integrity is valued by PASB colleagues and Argyle alike.

However, haing a look back on what you said back at the election time, I'm struck by your vision for the PASB.

You said (my empahsis in text):

Quote :

In relation to what the PASB should do or be, I am clear.

For me the PASB should be largely about corporate governance. I know this sounds fancy, but in reality I would like it to act akin to the governors of a school, effectively keeping the performance of the executive team monitored, with an appropriate reporting regime in place.

We do need to put some thought; take some advice about this. The Chairman & Board have an 'unswerving' legal responsibility regarding the operation of the company; it is their role to hold the executive to account & we must take care that the involvement of the PASB doesn't have an impact upon these statutory obligations.

Therefore we must take care with the detail when using sound bites such as 'we're going to hold the club to account'.

At a relatively simplistic level, I would seek to 'measure' the performance & decision-making of the club against two high level benchmarks - a set of club-owned values (one may be around ethics; eg to use local suppliers damaged by our Administration wherever practicable). The second may be to check expenditure & income against other comparable clubs, again as an example.

On that vision and on that measure we're nowhere, are we? Nigh on seven months after you wrote that and that performance measurement, that reporting regime, those "club-owned values" have moved in tiny increment if they have moved at all. And you could make a fair case to say some of them have moved backwards, given the apparent lack of any club-to-fan engagement in the earlybird season ticket prices and the schmozzle over the Grandstand.

I've banged on for far too long now about the missing-in-action Terms Of References, so I don't intend to say any more about it (frankly I'm as jaded about that as I am with virtually every element of Argyle at the moment) and I recognise that my track record on the Trust board can for a variety of reasons be called in to question, but having said that...

...is it really good enough that *this* is what fan engagement and corporate responsibility/accountability have ended up as?

Gareth,

Sorry for the delay in reply - believe it or not I've kept all that I wrote about my thoughts for the PAS Board from the start & occasionally refer back to them.

It's fair to say that little of the aspirational stuff that I wrote some months ago has happened - I also wrote that I'd like the PASB to ultimately become a function or sub-committee of the AFT...

Winding forward the clock to today sees us (that's the fans & the club) in a difficult position.

For me, we in the PAS Board took far too long to get moving. Speaking personally, I failed to raise any interest in people having the sort of discussions which would nail who & what we were. Even before we first met, I wrote a lengthy 'discussion document' hoping to stimulate debate about how we could agree what we were & then how we would go about achieving it. I had no feedback of note (which I'm sure is a reflection of my writing style rather than a criticism of others). We've struggled ever since.

Our first meeting with the Club was embarrassing; we didn't prepare at all & offered the Club nothing of substance.

Since then we have slowly improved but as a Board we're still not singing from the same song sheet. My aspirations remain aligned to what I wrote a long time ago; I think that the PAS Board should focus on the somewhat duller, corporate governance / strategic performance side of what the Club does thereby allowing a successful Trust room to operate, whereas (I think) others want it to be far more like the Trust. Somehow, we need to reconcile this & of course, I may not be right.

I suspect that we will need to become more 'professional' before the Club is comfortable with putting its faith in us more fully. I would be.

As for the Trust, well I am a member & I support the community-ownership concept. Indeed I'm interested in helping develop this at a national level if the chance materialises. But, my view is that our Trust has got it's tactics wrong. Rightly or wrongly, the Club feels that it has been severely & publicly criticised on a number of occasions without being given notice & whilst this feeling remains, it's difficult to see how bridges will be built. A critical friend needs to remember that it is still a friend.

If the PAS Board have helped move things along a little then good, but my over-riding feeling is that the Trust are in something of an 'Old Labour' psychodrama & need to identify how best to move forward. One of my favourite phrases has been oft-used on here; if you do it as you've always done it.... etc. The certainty of believing that you're right can be largely irrelevant if you have no influence. I genuinely mean this as a helpful observation rather than a negative criticism.

So to the Club. Again in my view, its problems are of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' type; 'the AFT won't engage with us properly so we won't engage with it' & the PAS Board are inconsistent....etc. If I'm honest mind, I can understand both of these views. I do believe that the top of the Club has wanted to engage more fully with fans, but perhaps hasn't prioritised it as highly as it needed.

It's probably not an overstatement to say that the result of all of this is that we have a more fractured fan base - certainly amongst the online & activist cohorts - than ever before and without analysing it too deeply, this can't be a good thing.

For the world to change, there's many of us that probably need to park our egos & be very honest with ourselves as to what the driver is for our actions. I do very much believe that we're rarely upset about what we say we're upset about.

At the moment, doors are being closed (for quite possibly a long, long time) & people are being deeply upset - harmed even - about what they're experiencing & yet still they continue to plough the same furrow.

I've spoken with people, given advice & kept confidences from across the fan base continuum & with incredibly few exceptions, everyone's been decent & good company. Yet change the scenario & some of these people can instantly profess hatred to each other & type it for the world to see.

So no, I don't think that the PAS Board has been an unqualified success story, but it has moved forward & has had some achievements of late.

It's problems though are - in my view - symptomatic of wider challenges within the fan base. If we want to address these challenges, we're going to need different behaviour from a whole host of people before we can start to repair the damage we've experienced this season.

And it's no good saying 'he's going to have to do this first' or 'she's going to have to say this....'. Successful leadership is as much about emotional intelligence as it is about fighting the fight. Having been involved in the PAS Board for some months now, I've seen our 'activist' fans (from all directions) demonstrate lots of the latter.....

I also note your self-deprecating comment about your time on the Trust - it has struck me that we've singularly failed to learn from any of the previous leaders-of-fans about how better to work together; about what they've learned - all of whom have suffered ups & downs. Perhaps if we all got together this could help provide a step forward?

Somebody's got to do something different if different is what we truly want.

OK we'll agree to disagree, but Keith from the Plymouth Branch is his own man, as is Mark from the Northern Branch. Virginia from PASALB doesn't curtail to anyone. All three from the Supporters Groups genuinely represent the wishes of their membership.
I don't really know Alan but from the one meeting I have sat in with him plus his emails I think he weighs up the argument and makes up his own mind and Jon Sparkes is an extremely switched on guy who knows the score.

There's 5, plus the three AFT members who will not 'be told' to do anything.

Angry of Mayfair wrote:

[img][/img]

is this how he wins people over... groping?

Is that Nickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ?