The GAS board

Why does The President who has had personal/private discussion with the Uni man have to clarify stuff. If he's a fan why doesn't he ask the questions fans do. The first thing that stands out to anyone reading the proposals is about the money thing. Why didn't he asked for it to be spelt out for the uninitiated. As for the business speak he should make sure its knocked on the head before its released next time.

I've asked CW to reconsider posting on here, to answer some of the questions people have. If he does, give him a chance without jumping at him and this truce could work.

knecht wrote:

Now clarified - it refers to the 20% offer to the Trust.

That still doesn't make sense to me. The 20% offer is to the Trust, and not to the GASboard, so why mix the two up?

Re the Guildhall meeting, yes, there wasn't much flesh put on the bones, but it was a bit more than just the seven seats and how they'd be allocated. Can't copy and paste from the official site, but it's all here.

In particular, it talks about meeting with the Board once a quarter to discuss matters of concern to supporters, keeping the Board informed about fans' views and the fans informed about developments at the club, providing a 'constructive challenge', and helping the club with community engagement and attracting new fans.

A good, broad set of aims and objectives, in my view, and one which doesn't need any further debate.

With this stakeholder engagement process expected to take six weeks, and elections presumably being held after that, I can't see anything much happening this season.

I think Jock, it will very much depend not on how he is treated on here, but how he reacts to the inevitable 'awkward' questions he will face from ATDers.

I give him 2 minutes and any excuse to chuck the toys out of the pram and invent some cock and bull story that his family are devastated that someone mentioned the word, peanut head

Only joking Chris. Really

He says his IP address is banned, so people will have to e-mail him any questions. Maybe someone could e-mail him asking him to set up his ATD account again and keep everything civil, it might work and help the truce.

As far as we mods can tell, the IP address that his user name is associated with is not blocked.

If he would like to start posting on here again, then I would suggest he emails us mods with his suggestions. We have not taken the unilateral action of banning his IP address.

He sounds receptive to an e-mail from a mod, so if someone wants to take the first step it could help calm things down. Let's show willing and see where it goes.

Email sent. Hand of friendship extended.

knecht wrote:

Now clarified - it refers to the 20% offer to the Trust.

Which still doesn't tell us much.

I think the last valuation I read for the club was Ridsdale's £1. Finding 20% of that won't be a problem for the Trust.

The thing that stood out for me was the 15 attendees at the meeting. Why 15? If a 16th turns up would that person be turned away?

Who will be attending on behalf of the club?

Cerbera wrote:

Email sent. Hand of friendship extended.

Cool, lets see how it goes.

This is what is said on the Official site from the Guildhall meeting:

"Since being taken over, the club has made it clear that it is important that the Green Army is properly represented and can play a part in providing constructive challenge to the Board.

The club therefore proposes to promote the formation of a new Green Army Supervisory Board (the 'GASB'). The GASB will:

· have seven members who will appoint their own chair. Three will be nominated - one each by the Argyle Trust, the Green Taverners, and officially affiliated Argyle Supporters' Club branches. The other four will come from the fan-base: season-ticket holders will be able to vote in person or by post; non season-ticket holders will be invited to vote at a nominated home game. The Argyle Trust will be asked to manage the election process on behalf of fans;

· be invited to meet with the Board no less frequently than once a quarter to discuss matters of concern to supporters;

· inform the Board of the fans' views and provide a constructive challenge on key matters;

· ensure that the fans are kept fully informed on developments at the club;

· assist the club with community engagement and attraction of new fans."

and this is what has been said about the creation of the GASB in the recent President's statement:

"1) Perform a stakeholder mapping exercise where we set out all the different constituencies that might be interested in joining the GAS Board and what they bring to the table. My guess is that all constituencies will bring loyalty and commitment to Argyle, but some might bring other things as well (e.g. money to buy season-tickets, money to invest in the club, etc.)."


We can all complain about the style (he is an academic after all). We can also have questions about the detail. But I took the phrase "all constituencies" to refer not to the actual membership of the GASB but to those they represent and, it seems to me, that the Trust, with its automatic seat on GASB may buy into the club - that's where the money investment comes from.

I want to know if the 4 meetings per year with the club are the totality of the GASB involvement. I want to know if their will be more informal ad hoc meetings. I want to know what the terms of reference will be for the GASB - eg will their comments be limited only, say, to what pasties are available. I want to know if the club will provide financing for the work of the GASB members. Possibly of greater importance is the terms of the 20% offer to the Trust.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

knecht wrote:

Now clarified - it refers to the 20% offer to the Trust.

I think the last valuation I read for the club was Ridsdale's £1. Finding 20% of that won't be a problem for the Trust.

The financial worth of the club is something I've been pondering over the last couple of days, particularly in regards to the Trust 20% thing. Basically I've come to the conclusion that currently the club is worth nowt in financial terms (the club's value is an altogether different matter). But I think rather than hijack this thread I'll start another.

Nick wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

knecht wrote:

Now clarified - it refers to the 20% offer to the Trust.

I think the last valuation I read for the club was Ridsdale's £1. Finding 20% of that won't be a problem for the Trust.

The financial worth of the club is something I've been pondering over the last couple of days, particularly in regards to the Trust 20% thing. Basically I've come to the conclusion that currently the club is worth nowt in financial terms (the club's value is an altogether different matter). But I think rather than hijack this thread I'll start another.

That would be a very worthwhile thread Nick.

Nick wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

knecht wrote:

Now clarified - it refers to the 20% offer to the Trust.

I think the last valuation I read for the club was Ridsdale's £1. Finding 20% of that won't be a problem for the Trust.

The financial worth of the club is something I've been pondering over the last couple of days, particularly in regards to the Trust 20% thing. Basically I've come to the conclusion that currently the club is worth nowt in financial terms (the club's value is an altogether different matter). But I think rather than hijack this thread I'll start another.

As the football club no longer owns the ground or, I assume, the land where the hotel will be built, PAFC's only assets are the players contracts, which, all joking aside, can only be classed as liabilities- the possible tranfer value of any of these assets? being outweighed by the negative value of things such as long term player & coaching staff contracts.

On this basis, PAFC has a negative value (perhaps it's a taxloss vehicle for Brent/Akkeron) and therefore Brent should be giving the trust money to take a stake in the club.

Seriously though, anyone or any group thinking of getting financially involved in the football (as opposed to the development) should be aware of possible repercussions should the club slip into Administration again (which I think will happen if this season ends in relegation)

Edited to add:

Now that I've read the Pres's post on the OS two things stand out:

1. We need to decide how many groups or individuals the GASB can represent, so we've set up a meeting with a maximum of 15 attendees.

This surely means any free spirited individuals not designated as leaders of their particular group will be excluded. Sounds familiar!

2. Webb is so into focus groups/ committees/ ISC's etc. that he must be classified as OCD and should be getting treatment.


Why can't anyone just say "anyone who may be interested in becoming part of the GASB come to a meeting"?

Some people will talk and set up Committees, steering groups etc. till the cows come home. What the hell happened to people actually DOING SOMETHING!

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Nick wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

knecht wrote:

Now clarified - it refers to the 20% offer to the Trust.

I think the last valuation I read for the club was Ridsdale's £1. Finding 20% of that won't be a problem for the Trust.

The financial worth of the club is something I've been pondering over the last couple of days, particularly in regards to the Trust 20% thing. Basically I've come to the conclusion that currently the club is worth nowt in financial terms (the club's value is an altogether different matter). But I think rather than hijack this thread I'll start another.

As the football club no longer owns the ground or, I assume, the land where the hotel will be built, PAFC's only assets are the players contracts, which, all joking aside, can only be classed as liabilities- the possible tranfer value of any of these assets? being outweighed by the negative value of things such as long term player & coaching staff contracts.

On this basis, PAFC has a negative value (perhaps it's a taxloss vehicle for Brent/Akkeron) and therefore Brent should be giving the trust money to take a stake in the club.

Seriously though, anyone or any group thinking of getting financially involved in the football (as opposed to the development) should be aware of possible repercussions should the club slip into Administration again (which I think will happen if this season ends in relegation)

Possibly the reason for Brent wanting to create such a board?

20% of nothing = ?

Or 20% of any potential liability = 20% less for Brent/Akkerron when the cack hits the fan.

Prof David Wheeler is a Founding Partner of an organisation that promotes stakeholder involvement. Their web-site has the introductory sentences:

"Integrity. Transparency. Prosperity. These are the hallmarks of the advisory services that consultants at Stakeholder Research Associates have been providing to clients since 1999. We are a values-based, value-focused consultancy that aims for measurable results through a stakeholder-inclusive approach to doing business."

An interesting first three words. Where have I heard that before? He has worked at a governmental level as well as smaller groups (I think I read some reference to energy users in Nova Scotia - or something like that). On flicking through, I found no obvious reference to smaller organisations. The above may explain his use of corporate language in the President's message. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if, in meetings, he is also capable of talking English. There is also an emphasis on finding innovative ways to engage "stakeholders". No surprise that Mr Brent has taken the opportunity to involve a local academic with such a back-ground.

There is an interesting post on pasoti by Graham Clark here.

The President speaks here >>> [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Crying shame that he's still only got eyes for Pasoti.

Dougie wrote:

The President speaks here >>> [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Crying shame that he's still only got eyes for Pasoti.

Could it be because he doesn't like open debate ?

Or awkward questions?

Green Taverner's reject offer of a place on the GAS board.

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

Sorry if it's been mentioned, send me to junior ATD!

mr president does not do open debate he seems to prefer to pm people with the usual crap

chuck in the hand grenade and then step back and watch us fight.

Just a quick one.

Tomorrows meeting is now maxed out in terms of attendees. As advertised admittance was either via named delegates of the various supporters groups or by emailing myself (as many have done).

Closed now so I can give names to the lady on gate 26 for entry. See you all there and there will be an update to supporters following the meeting.

Chris

Mr President wrote:

Just a quick one.

Tomorrows meeting is now maxed out in terms of attendees. As advertised admittance was either via named delegates of the various supporters groups or by emailing myself (as many have done).

Closed now so I can give names to the lady on gate 26 for entry. See you all there and there will be an update to supporters following the meeting.

Chris

As I sent Chris a text fairly early on in the process to request that I was one of the individuals who would attend, I'm going to assume that I'm one of the chosen few. I've never actually had anyone say to me: "If your name's not down, you're not coming in.."

Bearing that in mind, I'll repeat what I said on another thread:

If anyone has anything they want me to raise at the meeting, now's your chance; post it here and I'll see what I can do.