Rochdale hospitality

GreenWhiteBlack wrote:

Whos the guy in the blue Stone Island jumper in the original GOS picture?

I don't know but he looks like he's got a set of cuffs on.

Hang on, has he been nicked by Jon B?

Who is that wearing a stone island jumper in the director's box?? Sounds like one of the figures from greenjock's stories. ..

Is it Mike Newell?

ejh wrote:

Is it Mike Newell?

Can't be - he hasn't got a drink in his hand or throwing it over anyone.

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

Wozzer on Pasoti wrote:

Are the PASB independent from the club?

JonB on Pasoti replied when he wrote:

I think it's an interesting question, Woz.

Although in some ways the 'label' of independent doesn't have any real effect, it's a point (possibly technical) that I'm note so sure about.

(Thinking aloud now) is a school governor independent of the school it scrutinizes?

Is an HE/FE 'parliament' independent of the vice-chancellor it helps oversee?

I'm not sure!

That answer did it for me right there and then...

The reply should have been an unequivocal “damn right we are independent!”

You shouldn’t even have to think about it....

With all due respect...
I think JonB seems more interested in ‘committees’, and ‘governance’, and ‘procedures’ and ‘TOR’s’, than actually getting down to the business of holding the board of PAFC accountable.

It really is simple...
You ask a question or tell the club something, and the club gives an answer. You then tell us fans what was said.

Sorry Ricks but that is just to simplistic for modern day Pafc.

Well, one thing is certain and that is, that you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.

The way I see it is on the one side we have Brent/Akerron, supported by those who have something to gain/retain from their uwavering support and devious methods of obtaining fan compliance.
Brent sees these people either as useful fools or real fans leaders. The truth is probably that he sees them as a bit of both. They do lead the nodding fanfest types and in turn, those Avivas love being in the spotlight too. Unfortunately for Brent, these people do not possess enough class or vision to attract anyone but the already hooked.





Brent has been told quite rightly imo, that the club is capable of self sustaining its progress through the lower leagues but this in reality, relies on several factors.
Most important being a good lower league football management, coaching, scouting set up.
Another being sufficient seed funding from the owner/investors/directors , for the management to work with, If the team is winning, the attendances will rise. As things stand, all we have is a non investing owner and ever increasing debt being piled onto the football club.

On the other side, are other long term Argyle people, most of whom just want the club to succeed but who are appalled by the bullying and positioning that has gone on for several years and are increasingly rejecting Brent's version of fan engagement and of a community led club in name only. It seems that he wants everyone but his inner sanctum to turn up, pay up and shut up. Identified, ambitious and potentially influential members of the pasb will be courted and brought [or should that be 'bought'] into the group.

Ultimately, the two sides are poles apart and if Brent truly wants fan involvement and support he must be true to his words. For the long term good of the club, the AFT is the natural home and rallying point of the whole fanbase. What he has done is to consult only with those who call him a friend and then set up the pasb as a token, talking shop. He can disband it at will and it will never be anything more than it is now.

Brent might get lucky and the club might get on a roll. Either way, he will get the development done and will personally be quids in. The legacy he will leave with the boxed in stadium, won't bother him in the least. Ironically, by developing the stadium well, the chances of success on the pitch and the resultant increase in attendances/ future value of the club, would as Petrie's 'capacity, capacity' thread shows, be greatly increased.

Finally, the proposed development is now the crucial battleground in my opinion. If the AFT's led proposals are cast aside and the development goes ahead largely unchanged, the seeds of discontent and downright anger will either grow stronger and more widespread, or those who truly care about the future potential of the club will turn away for good. The club will be lower league offal for generations and visits to Sid James/ Plainbore will be the norm. Sadly, that will be right up Newell and Webb's street.

Anyone else think it looks like Nools got a really tight thong on?

Rickler wrote:

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

Wozzer on Pasoti wrote:

Are the PASB independent from the club?

JonB on Pasoti replied when he wrote:

I think it's an interesting question, Woz.

Although in some ways the 'label' of independent doesn't have any real effect, it's a point (possibly technical) that I'm note so sure about.

(Thinking aloud now) is a school governor independent of the school it scrutinizes?

Is an HE/FE 'parliament' independent of the vice-chancellor it helps oversee?

I'm not sure!

That answer did it for me right there and then...

The reply should have been an unequivocal “damn right we are independent!”

You shouldn’t even have to think about it....

With all due respect...
I think JonB seems more interested in ‘committees’, and ‘governance’, and ‘procedures’ and ‘TOR’s’, than actually getting down to the business of holding the board of PAFC accountable.

It really is simple...
You ask a question or tell the club something, and the club gives an answer. You then tell us fans what was said.

I once sat in the director’s box to watch a Plymouth Schools match many years ago, I never understood what the attraction was. Obviously some seem more attracted to a "position" than others.

Jon has been gently voicing his discomfort with posting on ATD for some time now yet seems well fitted to pasoti despite its corruptions and personal vendettas that I assume by his lack of opinion he must be able to so easily accept.

Then there was the hugely OTT and glowing approval of the first grandstand proposal that was even prior to the ridiculous second tier of seating that also confirmed the massive void between his views and the views of the fans.

Then there was the nonsense outburst regarding the breaking of law if you wrote to Councillors with a negative opinion that seemed to me as desperate act to show loyalty to those that seem not to want the best for the Club and its fans.

His seat in the directors box comes as no surprise and confirms that James Brent’s ideas of fan involvement is simply a cover for a small handpicked group that will agree to anything for a seat in a directors box and the trimmings that go with it.

Of course these views will sit uncomfortably for Jon and will probably pave the way for some sort of Hooper/Webb/Newell style of condemnation of ATD and its users, who purely by misfortune happen to be the fans that he claims to represent. Oh well...

Richard Blight wrote:

Jon,

as a matter of interest I was talking to John Demellweek ( ex Trust board member) a few days ago about the Trust and the problems with the club etc. The statements that have annoyed the club were written after we had left the board. We discussed whether we would have allowed the same statements to have been issued when we were on the board. Some of the wording may have been slightly different but we didn't see much wrong with the statements. The fan base was concerned about the situation the club was in and questions needed asking. We were not surprised that the club got annoyed because it was obvious to us before that the club was ( and obviously still is) very sensitive to even minor criticism. The Trust was never going to be right. The club would always say the timing was wrong. When would it be right? If the Trust can't ask awkward questions when the club is bottom of the whole football league, when can it? Fans demand to know why the Trust isn't doing anything or saying anything. They don't see the hours of work going on in the background. They wouldn't know about little meetings or conversations between the club and Trust.

For any club to expect their Trust never to criticise them is frankly ridiculous. Especially a club that has only just escaped relegation out of the football league by the skin of it's teeth.

This deserved re-posting.

That's about the size of it Gob. I would however omit Damon from any generalisations about PASB members and their poor decision making when it comes to accepting the Prawn sandwiches.

Czarcasm wrote:

That's about the size of it Gob. I would however omit Damon from any generalisations about PASB members and their poor decision making when it comes to accepting the Prawn sandwiches.

Yes. - My view is and has always been that the PASB is a handpicked bunch of self interested head nodders that care more for a status than the Club or the fans, my opinions haven't changed they have only been reinforced, but only as a group so I am generalising. As individuals I see one or two that have a more secure genetic moral coding.

I emailed Jon on Sunday evening regarding this matter and have not received a reply. As Jon seems to read these postings more than his email I will ask the following questions:

Who invited you into the Directors Box?
Were you invited as a representative of PASB or as a friend of a Board Member

If the invite was to the PASB were any other PASB members informed?
If the invite was as a friend of a member of the Board do you expect this could compromise your position on the PASB? - How can members of the PASB be confident that what is said in our meetings stays in our meetings?

Jon this is in no way personal. You are a very personable guy and I enjoy talking with you. Our views on PASB are poles apart and will never be reconciled. If PASB ends up being akin to a School Board of Governors then I will walk away. If it ends up as a fans pressure group calling the Board to account then I am sure you will walk.

In the meantime I feel uncomfortable sharing my thoughts in PASB meetings in the knowledge that you could be invited out to tea with JB and PJ and PASB internal discussions could be spoken about.

You have spoken at length about a new way of doing things a different way. Sometimes change isn't always for the best. JB tried to change football's philosophy of sacking managers and it nearly cost us our League status. This isn't a corporate institution - it is a football club and should be run as one. Boards make decisions, fans moan - if the Board genuinely want fan involvement it is no good cutting off relationships when they are not happy with the way things are going.

I will call for this situation to be on the Agenda at the next internal PASB meeting.

I think it's out of a respect for you and your position Damon, that a lot of people aren't giving it both barrels in the direction of the PASB at the minute.

If yours and JonB's views truly are polarised to the degree you infer, then that photo comes as no great shock.

As Gob says...

Disappointing - yes
Surprising - no

I actually feel sorry for Damon, I think he has been let down very badly by others with less of a moral compass but good on him for trying and for hoping to see the best in people rather than the worst.

I think the time is coming when Damon turns his back on this masquerade of deceit but that decisions is his. There should be a position somewhere for the likes of Damon to represent the fans, he deserves it and the fans need it.

thats why i say damon should run for a trust board seat (when one comes up) and fight the good fight for fans via them as the pasb is going to implode in the near future.

Yes but first let's see how long it is before he gets the invite to the director's box and the "dinner with James" as the other PASB reps seem to be getting and lapping up at the goodies on offer

I'm not so sure that this is particularly relevant, or alarming.

PASB representatives will need to associate with club personnel in order to establish personal relationships and better dialogue.

After all, it's been quite apparent that interpersonal relationships amongst those who represent the fanbase haven't been the best in recent times. We'd all like to see that improve.

Being photographed in a director's box at a game is no firm sign of a loss of independence or integrity.

Conduct and output is how that will be measured.

If we don't watch out, nobody will feel capable of representing the fanbase, for fear of transgressing an unknown or unforeseen boundary of "allowable conduct".

We all have differing lines of what is acceptable and what isn't and I don't believe that a photograph alone should be enough to sway opinion, but I think the majority will reach a view by the consideration of the photograph combined with the words recently used whilst also considering previous temptations of gifts, seats in the director's box, car-park spaces and titles etc. and, finally reach a logical and common sense conclusion of whether a "person" is behaving as they would like their representative to behave.

Of course it could be a mistake, in which case I would consider the acceptance of an invitation to sit in that position whilst also being fully aware of the sensitivities, as at best naive, at worse plain stupid. Either way I would not wish to be represented by such a person that lacks such understanding.

John_Lloyd wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is particularly relevant, or alarming.

PASB representatives will need to associate with club personnel in order to establish personal relationships and better dialogue.

After all, it's been quite apparent that interpersonal relationships amongst those who represent the fanbase haven't been the best in recent times. We'd all like to see that improve.

Being photographed in a director's box at a game is no firm sign of a loss of independence or integrity.

Conduct and output is how that will be measured.

If we don't watch out, nobody will feel capable of representing the fanbase, for fear of transgressing an unknown or unforeseen boundary of "allowable conduct".

very true,

i want the PASB to be defined by the memebers very soon. Either they are a fanclub for everything james brent suggests good or bad or they are a group representing fans views to the board.

They cant be both.

GOB wrote:

Yes but first let's see how long it is before he gets the invite to the director's box and the "dinner with James" as the other PASB reps seem to be getting and lapping up at the goodies on offer

You'll be waiting a very, very long time!!!!

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

GOB wrote:

Yes but first let's see how long it is before he gets the invite to the director's box and the "dinner with James" as the other PASB reps seem to be getting and lapping up at the goodies on offer

You'll be waiting a very, very long time!!!!

I wasn't inferring that you would Damon, I have you on a higher level then that.

John_Lloyd wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is particularly relevant, or alarming.

PASB representatives will need to associate with club personnel in order to establish personal relationships and better dialogue.

If that's the way you see things, it follows that you must see Damons place on the PASB as unhelpful and counter-productive. Fortunately a great many see Damons place as virtually the only beacon of light in an otherwise 'keystone cops type' organisation.

You shouldn't have to cosy up to the Board to hold them accountable.

Czarcasm wrote:

John_Lloyd wrote:

I'm not so sure that this is particularly relevant, or alarming.

PASB representatives will need to associate with club personnel in order to establish personal relationships and better dialogue.

If that's the way you see things, it follows that you must see Damons place on the PASB as unhelpful and counter-productive. Fortunately a great many see Damons place as virtually the only beacon of light in an otherwise 'keystone cops type' organisation.

You shouldn't have to cosy up to the Board to hold them accountable.

Brent loves a toady and it seems to help if they look like one too.

JB has never been anything but cordial. Last joint meeting he agreed to allow my 10 year old son to sit in the Boardroom whilst we had the meeting despite a strict 'no children at formal meetings policy' because I had no other childcare provision. We shook hands at the Awards evening. It is possible to have a working relationship despite being diametrically opposed in a number of issues affecting the Club. I don't believe, however, that JB and I will ever be friends and I don't think a friendship (going to a match with your mates) between the Chairman of the Club and Vice Chair of PASB is helpful or healthy.