The GAS board

Andy_Symons wrote:

GregCampbellFanClub wrote:

I thought there were going to be elections..........

I think they're just trying to decide whether to follow the Saudi or North Korean electoral model.

We need to swap user names, Andy.

A lot of people seem to be mentioning the German model.

It's all very well going on about the German model but in my opinion the GAS board will turn out to be some sort of cheap, powerless imitation.

It appears to me that going forward, the club will have to be financed (just about) fully by the fans. Who takes the profit when Mr Brent finally sells up though?

If Mr Brent really wants to see "fan engagement" and do something revolutionary (as well as go down in football folklore), then why not go the whole hog and set the club up along German lines.

That means that 51% of the club belongs to "the club" (how much did the club cost?).

The 51% is controlled by the club members. The other 49% by "investors".

The club members would include season ticket holders and other (let's say like the old green membership) members. All the season ticket/membership monies go to the club.

Members get priority ticketing etc.

Members elect the supervisory board members as well as club board members. The club board elect the chairman.

The supervisory board is just that and it is important that the right people are elected.

That's it in a nutshell. Of course in reality it's more complex but I hope that you get the general idea.

Doing this would ensure that the club could never be sold and that a very tight watch would be kept on the finances etc.

The financial state of the club would also be visible to just about everyone.

Why couldn't/shouldn't this happen?

Asked the very same question myself, moist bloke.

If he wants people to really feel part of it, give the Trust 51% of the club.

Then we might see some unity and common purpose.

Tringreen wrote:

Asked the very same question myself, moist bloke.

If he wants people to really feel part of it, give the Trust 51% of the club.

Then we might see some unity and common purpose.

Not the Trust TG, the club.

OK whatever, I agree.

Who's going to ask Brent ?

Tringreen wrote:

OK whatever, I agree.

Who's going to ask Brent ?

ps I'd buy a bloody season ticket and give it to someone deserving, to make sure I had a vote in something like that.

This is one view of part of the German model.

And this.

I guess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on, do you trust Brent or don’t you? Do you trust all possible future owners or don’t you?

If the GAS are given X% of the club that means they pick up X% of the profit or they are responsible for X% of the debt.

The club without any income other than match day sales etc. will build debt and subsequently fail unless the owners of the club bailout the club. This will involve Fan Fest on a scale that we are yet to see and a Trust constantly begging its members for hand-outs should Brent decide to ignore the situation and allow the debt to build or simply walk away.

However, should the club be relegated to the Conference then it’s feasible that the club can be kept solvent by the way of gate income, sales and Fan Fest etc.

If the Trust should be placed in a position where its finances are tied up bailing out a failing club then it knocks on the head a club rebirth should it ever be required.

A lot of people need to think long and hard before anything is signed, that’s for sure. We don’t want “Green Tints” leading this one, we need logical realist!

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my questions on The Trust forum - 20% ownership thread.

The German model can work as long as all clubs operate it, it's the perfect world, but we don't have it and there's too much money involved in England for most boards of directors to relinquish control, unless the thing we've all be screaming for years occurs and we get Government Legislation.

If clubs lower down the league (ie outside of the Premier) continue to struggle, it may be that more clubs will look at more fan involvement & similarly more fans will campaign for it.

In these dear islands of ours we are still so isolated. So many things, including the football, still have the mill owner culture with owners and fans alike gagging for more of the same. In the centre of Europe, Germany has such a different culture in their business and sporting world, far more planned, community based and organically pragmatic, avoiding the casino slash outside the off stump the English business establishment just cannot resist. Hence why Germany itself is still so compariitively successful, and will continue to be so.
Macro economic things may well change in this country in my lifetime but I very much doubt the modern day mill owners and sheiks will sling their hook anytime soon and leave football to us .... not while they are still praised so highly.

penzancepirate wrote:

In these dear islands of ours we are still so isolated. So many things, including the football, still have the mill owner culture with owners and fans alike gagging for more of the same. In the centre of Europe, Germany has such a different culture in their business and sporting world, far more planned, community based and organically pragmatic, avoiding the casino slash outside the off stump the English business establishment just cannot resist. Hence why Germany itself is still so compariitively successful, and will continue to be so.
Macro economic things may well change in this country in my lifetime but I very much doubt the modern day mill owners and sheiks will sling their hook anytime soon and leave football to us .... not while they are still praised so highly.

Sad but so very likely to be the reality.

Difficult isn't it ?

I could welcome the Russian billionaire, or some group with the cash to have a punt with Argyle. At least we would have tried.

I could also go along with the German style fans ownership.

What I can't cope with is all the cap doffing and personal positioning going on right now, with squeaky keen James Brent. It feels like the local squire milking the local peasantry, whilst handing out a few favours to his game keepers !

My personal opinion regarding GAS is that all concerned move out of the way and drop their interest so that the Trust can become the No1 focal point.

What's everyone else's opinion?

GOB wrote:

My personal opinion regarding GAS is that all concerned move out of the way and drop their interest so that the Trust can become the No1 focal point.

What's everyone else's opinion?

And will fly over the pyramid tomorrow.

If not then it will do exactly what I believe it was designed to do, divide the fan-base.

Right back in May, Brent's original idea was to run the club in a hands off way with Peter Ridsdale as the main man running the actual club, and probably with a bunch of volunteer serfs underneath him. Now he isn't here, Brent has plumped for 3 or 4 of the said serfs he has met during the process.
Does anyone really think an elected body will be allowed to run the footbal club ?

It's the Heaney and Ridsdale act, the only difference is that Brent has cash.

I believe there was only one act in town right from the start, it was just a case of making the figures add up...... enter Kevin Heaney, clown and general bad guy who loves a hoot. And of course, in return the process might just deliver 'help' with his own planning application further West in the form of an offer of Home Park to the Pirates.
As the administrator so rightly said back in May .... I believe I have met the eventual owner of PAFC.

Good debate on the GASboard here, with a number of posters questioning the need for it when we've got a Trust.

One idea I really like is that a group of Trust members / nominees stand for the four general fans' representative seats, and that block voting be encouraged. That way, not only would all seven GAS board members be Trust members too (which could well happen), but they'd also be accountable to the Trust membership.

Let's hope the incoming Trust board give this more than a passing glance.

Yes I think there's a growing voice asking the same question, it's a very valid one.

Peggy wrote:

Good debate on the GASboard here, with a number of posters questioning the need for it when we've got a Trust.

One idea I really like is that a group of Trust members / nominees stand for the four general fans' representative seats, and that block voting be encouraged. That way, not only would all seven GAS board members be Trust members too (which could well happen), but they'd also be accountable to the Trust membership.

Let's hope the incoming Trust board give this more than a passing glance.

Yep. I would guess that's how it will evolve, if it actually goes ahead at all in it's presently conceived format ... standing on a Trust backing would encourage Trust 'sorts' to stand and have a chance against the Pasoti nonsense.....that should put paid to Mr Hooper before he even gets off the ground.

What I don't get is why the GTs were offered a place when it is now very clear they never had any intention whatsoever of taking it up. Has this been set up for Mr Nool to take up that uncontested place I wonder ? ..... it seems such a strange thing to have got so obviously wrong.

Peggy wrote:

Good debate on the GASboard here, with a number of posters questioning the need for it when we've got a Trust.

One idea I really like is that a group of Trust members / nominees stand for the four general fans' representative seats, and that block voting be encouraged. That way, not only would all seven GAS board members be Trust members too (which could well happen), but they'd also be accountable to the Trust membership.

Let's hope the incoming Trust board give this more than a passing glance.

That debate is good.

And I agree totally with the rest of what you say (and Gob). But I would go further...

I want the trust to tell Brent they are not happy with the arrangements, and if they want the trust to run the election, then they had better be listened to and changes made.

Who is dictating the rules of fan engagement - Brent or the fans?

penzancepirate wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Good debate on the GASboard here, with a number of posters questioning the need for it when we've got a Trust.

One idea I really like is that a group of Trust members / nominees stand for the four general fans' representative seats, and that block voting be encouraged. That way, not only would all seven GAS board members be Trust members too (which could well happen), but they'd also be accountable to the Trust membership.

Let's hope the incoming Trust board give this more than a passing glance.

Yep. I would guess that's how it will evolve, if it actually goes ahead at all in it's presently conceived format ... standing on a Trust backing would encourage Trust 'sorts' to stand and have a chance against the Pasoti nonsense.....that should put paid to Mr Hooper before he even gets off the ground.

What I don't get is why the GTs were offered a place when it is now very clear they never had any intention whatsoever of taking it up. Has this been set up for Mr Nool to take up that uncontested place I wonder ? ..... it seems such a strange thing to have got so obviously wrong.

The more I think about it, the more I come around to the view that I would only stand as part of a slate of four like-minded people, with Trust backing. There are so many individuals trying to manoeuvre for a position on the Board at the moment it's becoming increasingly clear that, without a slate/block vote approach you'll end up with a combination of single issue obsessives, out of control ego's, and out of their depth busybodys representing only themselves. At least if a group of four can get the Trust to come out with an unequivocal statement - We support these 4 candidates and believe all Trust members should vote for them - then at least there's some accountability there. If the Trust is prepared to do that (and assuming they'd want to support me) I'd be happy to put my name forward. Enough people have urged me to stand, so I think I'd have a shot at it, at least.

The fly in the ointment is that we still don't know what its terms of reference will be. Until that's made clear - and I believe The Supreme Leader has had a meeting about it this afternoon - then we all may be trying to get elected to a Board that's just a talking shop. If it has real teeth and real power then it may be a worthwhile exercise. Other than that, it could just turn out to be a couple hours a month that you'd never get back. Lets see what TSL comes up with....

Subject to the terms of reference, I might even consider standing as part of a slate, too.