Brent's party on 14th

What are "Chatham House rules"? I've never heard of them before. Are they like "Cider House rules"?

I fear for the Trust's ability to actually be a stand alone body of any sort. I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of the meeting on the 14th is. Who is convening it? Is it a Trust meeting that Brent will attend or a Brent-led opportunity akin to a party political broadcast with the Trust in attendance?

On top of that if Chris Webb is chairing the meeting does he do so as the club President or as a Trust Member? Presumably the former because if it was as a Trust rep then Trust leader Wozzer ought to be the man in control but he isn't. That in turn puts the onus on Brent to set the agenda and so on.

I applaud Peter Ryan's post at the top of this thread though especially after having just read the thread on the the Pasoti Trust board about the buses to away games started by youknowwho. I say that that thread shows some real barefaced cheek and is mischiefmaking in the extreme. The Green Taverners all have access to Pasoti and yet it is himself who floats the notion that the GTs have more important fish to fry than running coaches to away games and goes on to suggest that the Trust does it. This in turn then sets the Trust up as a potential rival to the Plymouth supporters club which has been running transport to away games for years. It is a really quite thoughtless notion which can only set one faction against another and in all likelihood unneccessarily weaken them all as a result. And all done just as the Trust elections near. Which hat was being worn here? Is the post being originated by a CPer, a GT spokesman, a Pasoti user/moderator or a Trust member? If it is as the latter then an email to the Trust with the suggestion would have been much more appropriate.

It is up to those elected to the Trust committee to decide policies and so on and this looks like a naked attempt to set the agenda before they have even had their names released.

It all depends on who has put themselves forward for election. I hope that Richard Blight and Gareth Nicholson have. I know that Peter Ryan hasn't and wish that he had.

I'd love the Trust to be strong enough to respond to the transport suggestion in such a way as to discourage these external attempts to set policy in exactly the way it didn't when the last lot of elections were in progress and the only matter that seemed to matter was whether the Trust should hand over its funds to the GTs which it then promptly did and then it wrote the loan off. It was all a fait accompli before anyone even knew it and it all seems to be happening again. It must not be allowed to.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

.....
I applaud Peter Ryan's post at the top of this thread though especially after having just read the thread on the the Pasoti Trust board about the buses to away games started by youknowwho. I say that that thread shows some real barefaced cheek and is mischiefmaking in the extreme. The Green Taverners all have access to Pasoti and yet it is himself who floats the notion that the GTs have more important fish to fry than running coaches to away games and goes on to suggest that the Trust does it. This in turn then sets the Trust up as a potential rival to the Plymouth supporters club which has been running transport to away games for years. It is a really quite thoughtless notion which can only set one faction against another and in all likelihood unneccessarily weaken them all as a result. And all done just as the Trust elections near. Which hat was being worn here? Is the post being originated by a CPer, a GT spokesman, a Pasoti user/moderator or a Trust member? If it is as the latter then an email to the Trust with the suggestion would have been much more appropriate.

It is up to those elected to the Trust committee to decide policies and so on and this looks like a naked attempt to set the agenda before they have even had their names released.

............

Glad someone else thought the same. He is a country under nuclear threat of the highest order. Game playing in an underhand way to people who he should see as being on the same side. Any threat to his power-base and he is at it like ..... err .... someone who feels his power base threatened.

Rickler wrote:

Hey Damon,

While you're here.. I wondered what you thought about this comment?

"I'm not so sure that the GT's are that fussed about providing an away coach all of the time, as their fundraising has reached a different level these days, and Mark and Gary are, I know pushed for time etc."

Do you think they should provide one?

A group of fans arranging their own travel to an away game - don't see the problem in that Rickler - whether it's four up in the motor, a mini-bus or a coach - if Mark and Gary don't have time to do it (and they do have their own lives to lead) then somone else from the Group should do it if thats what they want to do.

Churs Damon for your thoughts here btw.

Rickler wrote:

Hey Damon,

While you're here.. I wondered what you thought about this comment?

"I'm not so sure that the GT's are that fussed about providing an away coach all of the time, as their fundraising has reached a different level these days, and Mark and Gary are, I know pushed for time etc."

Do you think they should provide one?

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

A group of fans arranging their own travel to an away game - don't see the problem in that Rickler - whether it's four up in the motor, a mini-bus or a coach - if Mark and Gary don't have time to do it (and they do have their own lives to lead) then somone else from the Group should do it if thats what they want to do.

Neither do I, Damon..

I just find it rather strange when it seems like the GT's are shirking the very things they were set up to do - or at least some people are advocating that!

This is taken from the GT's very own home page - the leading sentence.

GT Hompage wrote:

"Green Taverners

Green Taverners was set up in 2011 to help provide the Club with all the extra things that we do not think about every day like players training equipment, bibs, first aid equipment and even travel to away games.

We will be supporting primarily the first team however, the more money we can raise the more we can help the reserves, youth, ladies and disabled teams as well as help out with various other services around the club."

And we have the Trust, who were set with laws prohibiting them giving money to the club, in fact doing so, by having it 'laundered' through the GT's!

Its a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, 'cept for my Lola...

Rickler wrote:

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Hey Damon,

While you're here.. I wondered what you thought about this comment?

"I'm not so sure that the GT's are that fussed about providing an away coach all of the time, as their fundraising has reached a different level these days, and Mark and Gary are, I know pushed for time etc."

Do you think they should provide one?

A group of fans arranging their own travel to an away game - don't see the problem in that Rickler - whether it's four up in the motor, a mini-bus or a coach - if Mark and Gary don't have time to do it (and they do have their own lives to lead) then somone else from the Group should do it if thats what they want to do.

Neither do I, Damon..

I just find it rather strange when it seems like the GT's are shirking the very things they were set up to do - or at least some people are advocating that!

This is taken from the GT's very own home page - the leading sentence.

GT Hompage wrote:

"Green Taverners

Green Taverners was set up in 2011 to help provide the Club with all the extra things that we do not think about every day like players training equipment, bibs, first aid equipment and even travel to away games.

We will be supporting primarily the first team however, the more money we can raise the more we can help the reserves, youth, ladies and disabled teams as well as help out with various other services around the club."

And we have the Trust, who were set with laws prohibiting them giving money to the club, in fact doing so, by having it 'laundered' through the GT's!

Its a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, 'cept for my Lola...



[/quote]

I don't think anyone is shirking anything. GTs coaches are still being run. And the reality of the Trust money handed to the GTs - it was handed over when the Club was in administration, staff not being paid and a genuine fear that without supporters financially helping the staff we wouldn't have a club. Take time to speak to the staff and ask them whether or not they could have afforded to stay at the club during those times without the money the GTs were handing over to them. The Trust money did not go to the Club. Themoney handed over during administration was not and is not treated as part of the monies owed to the staff by the club. They were extraordinary times and called for extraordinary measures. The Trust stepped up to the plate and many people thank them for doing so.

Who decided that the Trust could firstly lend and then write off the loan? There must have been a vote. Was it unanimous?

I don't doubt for a second that the money was needed by the staff and nor do I doubt their gratitude for receiving it.

Following on from the club appropriating the Other Trust's money though the sensitivity surrounding this issue is obvious. Has the Other Trust been paid back yet?

Tim Chown wrote:

My first post here, be gentle

Just to reinforce what Gareth said, there's no secret deals going on as far as the Trust is concerned. Woz, Gareth and I have been left as custodians of the Trust until the elections complete. Our strategy is simply to leave as many doors open for the incoming board as possible.

So for the 14th, Gareth attended one meeting (Woz as Trust Chair was unavailable) and we wrote a letter to Brent to explain to him/remind him of the Trust's objectives, which are available in our Rules on the web site, section 2.

We stated that we would engage with discussions over whatever fan-based governance group he was considering creating. At the same time the Trust is large enough to consult its members and make its own statements about club matters. It can (and in my view should) be as independent as possible and a "critical friend". While things may be relatively rosy now, the Trust should be there for the long haul to hold the club to account, and challenge where necessary.

It will be up to the incoming board to consult the members and choose a strategy, be that pushing for a leading role within a fan-based oversight group set up by the club, and/or by its actions gaining respect as a strong independent voice for the supporters. Both options remain open.

With only three of us on the Trust board, we've focused on a handful of examples of the sorts of things the Trust can do in the future. The match day gazebo, the Foodbank collection, supporting the Ladies team's plight, sponsoring a match, offering help to Darlington. And we've been catching up on memberships and certificate distribution, for which Richard Blight and Sally Snow have been amazing. We'd be lost without their fantastic help.

I'd encourage everyone to come along on the 14th and have their say.

Can I just say that John Demellweek has also been a great help. I always think that people forget about Margaret Carn quietly getting on with the treasurers job as well.

There's been some interesting input on this thread as well. Whether it's conspiracy theories,people being slightly mischevious or fans with serious points,keep it all coming. It's making interesting reading. Nice to hear support for the Trust from Damon as well.

Richard Blight wrote:

Tim Chown wrote:

My first post here, be gentle

Just to reinforce what Gareth said, there's no secret deals going on as far as the Trust is concerned. Woz, Gareth and I have been left as custodians of the Trust until the elections complete. Our strategy is simply to leave as many doors open for the incoming board as possible.

So for the 14th, Gareth attended one meeting (Woz as Trust Chair was unavailable) and we wrote a letter to Brent to explain to him/remind him of the Trust's objectives, which are available in our Rules on the web site, section 2.

We stated that we would engage with discussions over whatever fan-based governance group he was considering creating. At the same time the Trust is large enough to consult its members and make its own statements about club matters. It can (and in my view should) be as independent as possible and a "critical friend". While things may be relatively rosy now, the Trust should be there for the long haul to hold the club to account, and challenge where necessary.

It will be up to the incoming board to consult the members and choose a strategy, be that pushing for a leading role within a fan-based oversight group set up by the club, and/or by its actions gaining respect as a strong independent voice for the supporters. Both options remain open.

With only three of us on the Trust board, we've focused on a handful of examples of the sorts of things the Trust can do in the future. The match day gazebo, the Foodbank collection, supporting the Ladies team's plight, sponsoring a match, offering help to Darlington. And we've been catching up on memberships and certificate distribution, for which Richard Blight and Sally Snow have been amazing. We'd be lost without their fantastic help.

I'd encourage everyone to come along on the 14th and have their say.

Can I just say that John Demellweek has also been a great help. I always think that people forget about Margaret Carn quietly getting on with the treasurers job as well.

There's been some interesting input on this thread as well. Whether it's conspiracy theories,people being slightly mischevious or fans with serious points,keep it all coming. It's making interesting reading. Nice to hear support for the Trust from Damon as well.

I'm not trying to be mischievous at all but I am extremely worried that Peter Ryan's comments suggest that the Trust is being led rather than leading. If Ian Newell wants to set policy then he should get himself elected.

Back to the bus thread on Pasoti and Tony Cholwell puts it brilliantly.

Quote :

For the Trust to "steal" the gig from the supporters club is both unethical and divisive.

There certainly was a poll on deciding whether to write off the loan (albeit on Pasoti) - with a massive majority in favour of the write off.

As for the 'other' trust loan, the whole episode is an absolute disgrace. I honestly don't know if it has been repaid. I know it was James; intention to repay it and would be a great question on the 14th.

It's not questions of just that.
It's a comprehensive list of who settled for what and over what time period. That's the only way this sale fiasco can be put to bed and a real judgement made of the deal foisted on the employees by Brent.
There's no point asking because those details will not be forthcoming.... business confidentiality don't you know .... more powerful than the right to silence, and even that doesn't exist anymore for us paupers. I'm thinking of calling myself pp Ltd.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

There certainly was a poll on deciding whether to write off the loan (albeit on Pasoti) - with a massive majority in favour of the write off.

As for the 'other' trust loan, the whole episode is an absolute disgrace. I honestly don't know if it has been repaid. I know it was James; intention to repay it and would be a great question on the 14th.

A "poll on Pasoti"?

Are you being serious here? It is none of Pasoti's business how the Trust allocates its funds. Or shouldn't be anyway.

It was Pasoti's business because rightly or wrongly Pasoti was the place the trust decided their messageboard would sit.

penzancepirate wrote:

It's not questions of just that.
It's a comprehensive list of who settled for what and over what time period. That's the only way this sale fiasco can be put to bed and a real judgement made of the deal foisted on the employees by Brent.
There's no point asking because those details will not be forthcoming.... business confidentiality don't you know .... more powerful than the right to silence, and even that doesn't exist anymore for us paupers. I'm thinking of calling myself pp Ltd.

PP - 'the deal foisted on the employees' was the deal of last resort. No other offers on the table. Please answer this question - James Brent's Argyle or no Argyle? because that was the choice.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

It was Pasoti's business because rightly or wrongly Pasoti was the place the trust decided their messageboard would sit.

No. Wrongly assessed in every important way possible. The decision was the Trust's decision to make not anybody else's and especially not anonymous users of a restricted internet forum where it is not unknown for users to have multiple accounts.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

A "poll on Pasoti"?

Not quite, but it may as well have been.

It was announced by the ISC of the Trust that the loan was going to happen but that a vote would be taken amongst the trust membership to 'ratify' the decision. Only if there was overwhelming negative feedback would it be overturned.

I believe an email was sent to all trust members... The final vote was something like 76 for and eight against.

It was a done deal before it ever went public.

Thel ISC board vote (when it was finally made public) was much closer.

I am sure others can give you the exact figures and the names of how the ISC members voted.

Keep in mind.. At the time of the vote, it was a loan - not a charitable donation!

The 4 Chairs of the Trust and every one of the people that have served on it's Committee have stepped up to the mark for their football club. No-one had previous experience, there are rules laid down which have been adhered to but there is no manual. There is also no big conspiracy. Have mistakes been made? possibly - but I believe all have been 'honest' mistakes. Running a Trust messageboard and a poll on Pasoti was never going to be the favoured route on ATD - but that is what was done. I enjoy the discussions on ATD but I do feel so many posters on here are happy to knock whoever sticks their head above the parapet in support of the football club, yet are reticent to put themselves forward and play their part.

You bring up a very important point, Damon..

How the hell do those shouting the loudest on Pasoti about people here on ATD not stepping up to the plate, have the slightest idea at all about what posters on this site have or haven't done?
,
Damn cheek if you ask me.

I can tell you... Everyone on ATD has made a donation (albeit a small one) because I made one to the GT's in the name of the "members of ATD".

So f**k Newell and the pig he rode in on.

Rickler - your donation in the name of ATD was gratefully received. I am not trying to single out any 'superfans' - everyone does what they can or gives what they can. I do enjoy the debate on here but there are certain posters who will knock anyone, CP, GT, Trust or any other individual or group who does try to do that bit more for the love of OUR club. We are all Argyle, but you would be hard pressed to believe it by some of the posts both on here and on Pasoti. It's late - have great weekend all and lets get the 3 points this afternoon!!!

Once again, a lot of good stuff to catch up on this morning. Tim, welcome, and many thanks for your reassuring input regarding the Trust. Damon, your reasoned and civilised outlining of your position adds great value to this site. This site is progressing in leaps and bounds.

I had been invited by the sponsors to attend Albion's match on the 14th but think now I'll try to attend the meeting. How interesting it might be to ask if there could be a show of hands in support of the Trust being the main conduit to the club for supporter input. IMHO internet forums, which in all cases can be driven by the "few", should have a very limited say, if any at all.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Rickler - your donation in the name of ATD was gratefully received. I am not trying to single out any 'superfans' - everyone does what they can or gives what they can. I do enjoy the debate on here but there are certain posters who will knock anyone, CP, GT, Trust or any other individual or group who does try to do that bit more for the love of OUR club. We are all Argyle, but you would be hard pressed to believe it by some of the posts both on here and on Pasoti. It's late - have great weekend all and lets get the 3 points this afternoon!!!

Damon,

I would be interested to hear the names of those who knock 'anyone' and I presume you also meant 'everyone' concerning the groups you mentioned.

But since you brought that up... I have been 'knocked' - amongst many things - for not going to matches... Even though I live in Los Angeles I have still managed (at great expense) an average of two or three for the last decade or so..

This has been a delibrate slur against me and others and in my particular case was a delibrate lie. Twice it has been leveled against me by none less than the club President. And how would he know? He doesn't - he just listens to what Newell has told him!

After the first time, when give the chance to question Chris Webb about it (in a skype video chat he invited me to) he admitted to writing it as he knew it would wind me up! (It didn't, but that is neither here or there...) But his intentional use in doing it again leads me to one conclusion... He has some sort of twisted agenda.

So what is worse? Those who 'knock' people? Or those that delibrately lie and attempt to wind someone up in an attempt to achieve some warped aim?

I hope your dreams were sweet and green!

Andy_Symons wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

I think it's time I stuck my head above the ATD parapet and added to the debate. To that end, a question for Chris Webb:

If, as hinted in 1) above, the club is yet to 'recognise' the Trust, why then are the Trust FULLY involved in talks ahead of the club-organised meeting (see 2). Just asking...

Excellent question, Andy. You won't of course get an answer here, but if you should decide to ask elsewhere perhaps you could try to get a reply to my questions too - I never did:

Quote :

1. Which bit of 'equivalent' don't you understand?

2. Maybe because a small group of good people have been left in the lurch with too much to do?

3. If he was intending to do things differently, he'd have waited til after the results of the Trust elections.

Yes, a good question Andy, and it of course does highlight the pretty strong possibilty of other arrangements and systems being put in place already.

I have heard somewhere Brent wants a representatitve body of fans that will be elected/chosen in a 'transparent manner'. Let's hope that is the case, and let's hope some are not 'exempt' from the election process and that this meeting doesn't suddenly spring a 'vote' on the evening without plenty of prior notice.
Hence Peter Ryan's post no doubt.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

The 4 Chairs of the Trust and every one of the people that have served on it's Committee have stepped up to the mark for their football club. No-one had previous experience, there are rules laid down which have been adhered to but there is no manual. There is also no big conspiracy. Have mistakes been made? possibly - but I believe all have been 'honest' mistakes. Running a Trust messageboard and a poll on Pasoti was never going to be the favoured route on ATD - but that is what was done. I enjoy the discussions on ATD but I do feel so many posters on here are happy to knock whoever sticks their head above the parapet in support of the football club, yet are reticent to put themselves forward and play their part.

What you omit, Damon, is that there were people with experience who were deliberately sidelined because others didn't like them or their views. Lots of people were prepared to stick their heads above the parapet, but were prevented from doing so by a small clique who, it now appears, are intent on continuing to run everything with no accountability.

That doesn't mean, of course, that everybody didn't do their bit - unemployed fans put money in the buckets, people who couldn't afford it renewed their season tickets, people turned up to meetings and demonstrations when they had other things to do, and all the rest. Yet those of us who didn't bother to publicise our efforts are constantly hit with the stick of 'what did you do?' It's getting very tedious, to say the least.