Trust/PASB question. The new stand - Kier

The boat.

pepsipete wrote:

Actually a have a soft spot for Exeter City and their fans.  ..... A Dartmoor Bog

Would that be the one Ridsdale strolled down from before Porky started sniffing his farts?

jabba the gut ecfc wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

It should not have happened and it probably won't again but it's provided a useful stick for those who dislike either Andy or the AFT to beat them with. A brief apology would put this one to bed.

I don't need an apology for it to be put to bed. The comment itself didn't bother me - I've received and given worse. However I hope whoever posted it has taken on board some of the reaction and that on reflection he appreciates that it was rash and unprofessional to post pejorative comments about any other club - even ECFC - under the banner of the AFT. Given the febrile politics and the cynical manipulation that is going at PAFC, certain individuals will use - and indeed have used - any ammunition they can to discredit the AFT as a voice for the fans. The last thing the AFT needs is for it's own officials to do its enemies' dirty work for them.

The likes of John Petrie, Gareth Nicholson, Babbaracuda and especially Graham Clark and John Lloyd give excellent examples of the way to conduct yourself in the present situation. Reading Ian Newell try to tangle with Graham Clark on PASOTI is as hugely entertaining as it was to see Richard Dunn try to lay a glove on Muhammad Ali. Clark never loses his cool, or rises to any of the sly digs and barbs that come his way, but instead makes clear, forensic and dispassionate arguments with the facts to back them up. You can almost feel Newell's intense frustration at not being able to lay a bead on him radiate through your computer screen.

As far as I can see a strong and credible AFT is the best hope for the post-Brent era and so it deserves the support of all concerned fans. That doesn't mean that support should be uncritical, but neither should it mean beating the AFT over the head because it can't please all of the people all of the time and does some things you disagree with.

By the way, whatever happened to Babbaracuda? I hope he wasn't intimdated in the disgusting way John Petrie seems to have been.

I will apologise to anyone who was offended by what was intended as nothing more than a minor dig at our biggest rivals. It may surprise some on here, but even AFT Board members are human, with all that goes with it.

Why it should come as a shock that I (Andy) am the one tasked with the use of the AFT accounts, both on here and pasoti, is a mystery. Who were you expecting? Peter Jones?

On pasoti we can only place formal announcements, and even responding to debates around AFT issues is difficult. The moderation on here is more liberal, and as such we can not only place announcements, but also respond to debates and clarify/explain things. Which is what I'm going to do now with regard to some of the points made.

Firstly - the original post by Gareth: I raised the issue of blacklisting with Martyn Starnes at the PASB meeting on Saturday. Also present representing the Board was David Felgate. who suggested that such was the publicity around blacklisting that Keir were unlikely to try and repeat the trick at HHP. My response was that, in that case they would have no problem putting a clause in the contract that they would uphold the employment rights of all workers. Martyn has promised to take my points and requests on board, and he will keep me informed as the process develops.

Onto other matters.

1) If any Trust member is unhappy with either an individual Board member, the Board as a whole, or the direction and policies of the Trust Board, there are procedures and mechanisms you can follow to censure or remove a Board member, as well as ways in which you can put issues to the membership for debate and a vote in an attempt to change policy. The Trust's rules can be found here:

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

Fill your boots.

2) A few posters commented along the lines that they felt that the Trust had let them down, or hadn't represented their wishes. Apart from revisting point 1) above, it's worth mentioning that the Board's job is to represent the views and wishes of the Trust's membership. That is what we have endeavoured to do. As has been said, you can't please all of the people all of the time, and we have no way of knowing whether an individual posting from an online pseudonym is a Trust member. Also, we aren't here to represent the views of posters on messageboards - ATD or pasoti, whichever direction those views take - so it's unrealistic to post an opinion in isolation and then complain that we haven't done as you feel we should - which takes us back to point 1) above, again.

3) The annual Trust Board elections are in November. The whole process is getting underway now - Trust members can expect the election notice through the post drekly. Not happy with the Board? Want the Board to take a different direction? Feel you can add something to the Trust? Now's your chance to step forward. I look forward to seeing plenty of interest from ATD posters.

Right...
Thanks very much, Andy.

Since you spoke to Martyn, any word on the supporters bar?

Rickler wrote:

Right...
Thanks very much, Andy.

Since you spoke to Martyn, any word on the supporters bar?

It was raised at the meeting on Saturday - Martyn is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the subject, and the case we're making for a bar that's open to all supporters on matchdays. Martyn did say that various schemes were being looked at, but that the layout and design is still a work in progress. We as a Trust will continue to press on this issue. It's our strong belief that a large, well designed, accessible Supporters Bar will deliver a significant amount of revenue to the club - not just on matchdays but as a venue for Argyle fans to watch major televised sporting occasions, as well as hosting parties, and other events when being made available for hire.

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Right...
Thanks very much, Andy.

Since you spoke to Martyn, any word on the supporters bar?

It was raised at the meeting on Saturday - Martyn is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the subject, and the case we're making for a bar that's open to all supporters on matchdays. Martyn did say that various schemes were being looked at, but that the layout and design is still a work in progress. We as a Trust will continue to press on this issue.  It's our strong belief that a large, well designed, accessible Supporters Bar will deliver a significant amount of revenue to the club - not just on matchdays but as a venue for Argyle fans to watch major televised sporting occasions, as well as hosting parties, and other events when being made available for hire.

I thought that panning permission had been granted?

What has planning permission been granted for?

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Right...
Thanks very much, Andy.

Since you spoke to Martyn, any word on the supporters bar?

It was raised at the meeting on Saturday - Martyn is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the subject, and the case we're making for a bar that's open to all supporters on matchdays. Martyn did say that various schemes were being looked at, but that the layout and design is still a work in progress. We as a Trust will continue to press on this issue.  It's our strong belief that a large, well designed, accessible Supporters Bar will deliver a significant amount of revenue to the club - not just on matchdays but as a venue for Argyle fans to watch major televised sporting occasions, as well as hosting parties, and other events when being made available for hire.

I thought that panning permission had been granted?

What has planning permission been granted for?

Maybe I should have been clearer - I'm talking about the bars and 'entertainment' (if that's the right word) areas.

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Moist_Von_Lipwig wrote:

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Right...
Thanks very much, Andy.

Since you spoke to Martyn, any word on the supporters bar?

It was raised at the meeting on Saturday - Martyn is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the subject, and the case we're making for a bar that's open to all supporters on matchdays. Martyn did say that various schemes were being looked at, but that the layout and design is still a work in progress. We as a Trust will continue to press on this issue.  It's our strong belief that a large, well designed, accessible Supporters Bar will deliver a significant amount of revenue to the club - not just on matchdays but as a venue for Argyle fans to watch major televised sporting occasions, as well as hosting parties, and other events when being made available for hire.

I thought that panning permission had been granted?

What has planning permission been granted for?

Maybe I should have been clearer - I'm talking about the bars and 'entertainment' (if that's the right word) areas.

Ok Andy. It just seems that the club just says what it thinks it has to say to keep the fanbase pacified. Please don't fall for all the false promises.

I don't think you needed to apologise Andy but you have so so be it.


I am disappointed with the Trust although it would be fairer to say that I am disappointed with the fans that are members of the Trust rather than those that represent the Trust. Once again, Argyle fans will get what Argyle fans deserve.

What does amaze me is that there's more fuss being created about a supporters bar and a GT hang out than there was about the size of the bloody stadium, but there you go.

Argyle Fans' Trust wrote:

...
I will apologise to anyone who was offended by what was intended as nothing more than a minor dig at our biggest rivals. It may surprise some on here, but even AFT Board members are human, with all that goes with it.

OK - so we all make mistakes. That shouldn't be a problem as long as you understand why it was inappropriate to use what appears to be an official AFT account in order to post minor digs at rivals in the style you did. "Sid James Park" is not the worst slur in the world, but in the context in which it was posted the comment was unprofessional - AFT might be more relaxed than some other sites but it is still a public forum. IIRC a member of our Board of Society was removed for posting pejorative comments under the umbrella of ECFCST on twitter or somesuch.

Quote :

Why it should come as a shock that I (Andy) am the one tasked with the use of the AFT accounts, both on here and pasoti, is a mystery. Who were you expecting? Peter Jones?

Making facetious remarks in a defensive response to legitimate criticism is simply compounding the problem.

Quote :

...1) If any Trust member is unhappy with either an individual Board member, the Board as a whole, or the direction and policies of the Trust Board, there are procedures and mechanisms you can follow to censure or remove a Board member, as well as ways in which you can put issues to the membership for debate and a vote in an attempt to change policy. The Trust's rules can be found here:

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

Fill your boots.

2) A few posters commented along the lines that they felt that the Trust had let them down, or hadn't represented their wishes. Apart from revisting point 1) above, it's worth mentioning that the Board's job is to represent the views and wishes of the Trust's membership. That is what we have endeavoured to do. As has been said, you can't please all of the people all of the time, and we have no way of knowing whether an individual posting from an online pseudonym is a Trust member. Also, we aren't here to represent the views of posters on messageboards - ATD or pasoti, whichever direction those views take - so it's unrealistic to post an opinion in isolation and then complain that we haven't done as you feel we should - which takes us back to point 1) above, again.

3) The annual Trust Board elections are in November. The whole process is getting underway now - Trust members can expect the election notice through the post drekly. Not happy with the Board? Want the Board to take a different direction? Feel you can add something to the Trust? Now's your chance to step forward. I look forward to seeing plenty of interest from ATD posters.

Good points, well made. I hope those who have attacked the AFT take them on board.

If the elected Trust board is going to wait for some sort of mandate from its membership, it will wait forever.

In my view the board was elected, or if you like, is in position for its term of office, to make policy decisions and act upon them.

There was no time for a mass consultation. The pasb voted and acted rightly or wrongly. The Trust could and in my view, should have done the same, even if the result was to support the plans.

That is why there are elected officers............ to make decisions !!!

ps Maybe you shouldn't post as the AFT Andy. What gives you the right to represent us all without discussion ?

The clusterfuck is now a virtual reality, if Sir James is capable of closing the deals and our leading fans and reps are busying themselves questioning politely about a supporters bar. If one is created of any size it will still be taken over by the self promoting Avivas and the beer will be flat, as the place will rarely be open. Who will want to visit a barn, stinking of pasties and stale ale down a draughty alleyway ?

As with all things Argyle[ and brent recognised this early on], grown men become like boys concerning their football club. To actually be given the keys to the place for the likes of the Windsor Boys, was beyond their wildest dreams and they'll do 'anything' to maintain their position.
Others can now see the game that has been played out and want a piece of the action. From Sue Buckets, through the GT's, to the pasb and the trust, it has become a 'Who's Who ?' at Home Park. As I said, brent is very aware of this weakness and has used it to co-erce, divide and conquer, for his own benefit.

PAFC's future has been at best constrained for two generations. I can't see it ever recovering.

The great sadness is that those on the ground and who claim to love the club the most , are the very ones who are selling the club's future, for their place at the Theatre of Schemes. They are all easily recognisable and for them, being in the spotlight seems more important than the club itself.

Tringreen wrote:

If the elected Trust board is going to wait for some sort of mandate from its membership, it will wait forever.

In my view the board was elected, or if you like, is in position for its term of office, to make policy decisions and act upon them.

There was no time for a mass consultation. The pasb voted and acted rightly or wrongly. The Trust could and in my view, should have done the same, even if the result was to support the plans.

That is why there are elected officers............ to make decisions !!!

I think the Trust have to be very careful at the moment, because their enemies are very good at alleging that they are not representing the views of their members. I get the impression that the Trust are very concerned about the direction of Argyle under Brent - but other then a growing minority on Pasoti, almost all of ATD and few PASB members, most of the fanbase appears unconcerned with our current situation.

If the Trust attacked Brent and went in all guns blazing then they would be immediately cut down by the Nooligans with accusations that they are not representing the fans view. I think (hope) that by building bridges with the club they will have more influence then if they went on the warpath.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

If the elected Trust board is going to wait for some sort of mandate from its membership, it will wait forever.

In my view the board was elected, or if you like, is in position for its term of office, to make policy decisions and act upon them.

There was no time for a mass consultation. The pasb voted and acted rightly or wrongly. The Trust could and in my view, should have done the same, even if the result was to support the plans.

That is why there are elected officers............ to make decisions !!!

I think the Trust have to be very careful at the moment, because their enemies are very good at alleging that they are not representing the views of their members. I get the impression that the Trust are very concerned about the direction of Argyle under Brent - but other then a growing minority on Pasoti, almost all of ATD and few PASB members, most of the fanbase appears unconcerned with our current situation.

If the Trust attacked Brent and went in all guns blazing then they would be immediately cut down by the Nooligans with accusations that they are not representing the fans view. I think (hope) that by building bridges with the club they will have more influence then if they went on the warpath.

90% of the Pasoti/ATD polls were in favour of the WG plans. In the context of all the developments in Plymouth, the extra money/land required to do a proper job wasn't great. By stepping back and not drawing up battle lines for hearts and minds, the clusterfuck will now happen and all they're doing is trying to get a dingy supporters bar.
The Trust missed its opportunity to inform supporters and the public, far and wide of a far better alternative. I daresay the nooligan types would have come on board as soon as they saw which way the wind was blowing.

For me, what is happening now is irrelevant. The club is f*cked as far as potential goes but some won't care as long as they are a recognisable face among the 5k saps turning up.

Tringreen wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

If the elected Trust board is going to wait for some sort of mandate from its membership, it will wait forever.

In my view the board was elected, or if you like, is in position for its term of office, to make policy decisions and act upon them.

There was no time for a mass consultation. The pasb voted and acted rightly or wrongly. The Trust could and in my view, should have done the same, even if the result was to support the plans.

That is why there are elected officers............ to make decisions !!!

I think the Trust have to be very careful at the moment, because their enemies are very good at alleging that they are not representing the views of their members. I get the impression that the Trust are very concerned about the direction of Argyle under Brent - but other then a growing minority on Pasoti, almost all of ATD and few PASB members, most of the fanbase appears unconcerned with our current situation.

If the Trust attacked Brent and went in all guns blazing then they would be immediately cut down by the Nooligans with accusations that they are not representing the fans view. I think (hope) that by building bridges with the club they will have more influence then if they went on the warpath.

90% of the Pasoti/ATD polls were in favour of the WG plans. In the context of all the developments in Plymouth, the extra money/land required to do a proper job wasn't great. By stepping back and not drawing up battle lines for hearts and minds, the clusterfuck will now happen and all they're doing is trying to get a dingy supporters bar.
The Trust missed its opportunity to inform supporters and the public, far and wide of a far better alternative. I daresay the nooligan types would have come on board as soon as they saw which way the wind was blowing.

For me, what is happening now is irrelevant. The club is f*cked as far as potential goes but some won't care as long as they are a recognisable face among the 5k saps turning up.

You are probably right mate, but after the club cut off communications with the Trust after Andy's comments in the Herald, and after the FoCP lies peddled by Nool, I understand why they have taken the path they have. I would rather that they went on the offensive but I am not sure that would have been the best decision. They can always take a more aggressive path in the future, but as you say, it may be too late by then.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Frank Bullitt wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

If the elected Trust board is going to wait for some sort of mandate from its membership, it will wait forever.

In my view the board was elected, or if you like, is in position for its term of office, to make policy decisions and act upon them.

There was no time for a mass consultation. The pasb voted and acted rightly or wrongly. The Trust could and in my view, should have done the same, even if the result was to support the plans.

That is why there are elected officers............ to make decisions !!!

I think the Trust have to be very careful at the moment, because their enemies are very good at alleging that they are not representing the views of their members. I get the impression that the Trust are very concerned about the direction of Argyle under Brent - but other then a growing minority on Pasoti, almost all of ATD and few PASB members, most of the fanbase appears unconcerned with our current situation.

If the Trust attacked Brent and went in all guns blazing then they would be immediately cut down by the Nooligans with accusations that they are not representing the fans view. I think (hope) that by building bridges with the club they will have more influence then if they went on the warpath.

90% of the Pasoti/ATD polls were in favour of the WG plans. In the context of all the developments in Plymouth, the extra money/land required to do a proper job wasn't great. By stepping back and not drawing up battle lines for hearts and minds, the clusterfuck will now happen and all they're doing is trying to get a dingy supporters bar.
The Trust missed its opportunity to inform supporters and the public, far and wide of a far better alternative. I daresay the nooligan types would have come on board as soon as they saw which way the wind was blowing.

For me, what is happening now is irrelevant. The club is f*cked as far as potential goes but some won't care as long as they are a recognisable face among the 5k saps turning up.

You are probably right mate, but after the club cut off communications with the Trust after Andy's comments in the Herald, and after the FoCP lies peddled by Nool, I understand why they have taken the path they have. I would rather that they went on the offensive but I am not sure that would have been the best decision. They can always take a more aggressive path in the future, but as you say, it may be too late by then.

It already is too late. The Trust has never established itself and has less than half the membership of the Exeter Trust. It will now fall even further. It had the chance to be a rallying point and backed off.
If the club goes tits up and nobody wants it, the usual suspects will take over the Trust and try to start again. Either way we're f*cked.

It's not to late Tring, the Trust is going to be needed in a big way one day when it comes to rebuilding the Club after the Newell's, Webb's, Jones's and Brent's have completed their grubby work and I really don't think that the same crowd will be asked to to run the AFT again, do you?

Tringreen wrote:

It already is too late. The Trust has never established itself and has less than half the membership of the Exeter Trust. It will now fall even further. It had the chance to be a rallying point and backed off.
If the club goes tits up and nobody wants it, the usual suspects will take over the Trust and try to start again. Either way we're f*cked.

It's never too late Tring, people have just got to get involved.

ECFC's Trust suffered and has never recovered from half the prime movers moving into the Boardroom while the other half stomped off one by one in a strop, it's a long game though, good people are now just waiting for the next time we go fubar, that is what you guys ned to do, it is after all "a marathon not a sprint".