The GAS board

For what it's worth Andy, I believe Brent is not the only one that would wish the Trust marginalised.
At his own admission, this latest owner doesn't know diddly about anything football shaped let alone football fans. His whole impression will have been shaped by the usual suspects and they will have been working overtime convincing him how horrible we all are and how we musn't be let near anything called a decision. If the Trust had been thought highly of by the CPers and Brent, Chris Webb wouldn't have pogoed over to the President's hat.
Remember we're dealing with a Citibank boy here looking for a green input into the blue Big Society. It certainly won't be a red big society he's after.

I thought the same thing as Andy yesterday but apparently September is a deadline for the Trust to decide whether to buy a stake in the club. It was very difficult to hear what he was saying at times.

There seems to be a very genuine attempt to destabilize this site and along with it any support for the Trust and debate regarding this topic. It's something that we'll fight all the way, voices must be heard and if this site should suffer because of it another will be immediately born and ready to take over the role.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Bogsider wrote:

Whois going to be on it, I nominate Freathy! From what I gather on here and my own short and sweet PASOTI days which were only too brief, joe Noolin doesn't do democratic and consensual and I can't see him lower himself to begging for votes when his place up Brent's arse is already safe. Ditto Webbston.

I'd like Andy symons, Richard blight, John Lloyd, Peter ryan and warren Bowden on board off the top of my head.

I'm not entirely sure what I've done to merit anyone's support, to be honest. And as it stands I'm struggling to see how the whole thing can be organised. If 'the supporters' are going to elect a number of representatives, how is that going to work? Who decides exactly who is 'a supporter'? Is it only season ticket holders? POTDers with a certain number of ticket stubs? Anyone who's been abused by Ian Newell over the last 12 months? I think a lot more practical thought has to go into this before anyone can state with any certainty that they want to put themselves forward.

The one thing I do hope is, come the time, the GAS Board is made up of a real awkward squad. I don't want to see anyone who's an out and out Yes Man (or woman). If the Board really is going to be held to account, then supporters who aren't afraid of making themselves unpopular with the powers that be; people who will ask the awkward questions, as well as representing the fanbase fairly, should be the people putting themselves forward. A supporters group of sycophantic egomaniacs and power-seekers (which is what I fear we'll end up with) is no good to the fans, and actually no good to the club.

One final thought that I've been mulling over: With the 20% shareholding offer, and the establishment of the GAS Board, is Brent attempting to marginalise the Trust? I ask this because he's given the Trust a september deadline to decide upon buying the shares, and, with the best will in the world, I can't see how the Trust can come up with the sort of money needed to buy 20% of PAFC by then.




Admittedly I've no way of knowing what the current state of Trust finances are, but the election must be draining the cash, and membership appears to be in a state of stagnation. Obviously there's also the small matter of Brent's valuation of the club. But, if the Trust isn't in a financial position to buy that 20% by September, and that particular ship sales, how long will it be before the opportunity arises again.

And the GAS Board appears to have been set up to do exactly what many members are wanting the Trust to do - act as a kind of watchdog for the Board's behaviour. If the GAS Board is doing this, what will the Trust Board be doing?

I'm posing these thoughts as a Trust member, who wants to see the Trust grow and prosper, but I can't help but wonder whether JB has implemented these measures in order to neutralise and marginalise the Trust.

Thoughts?

You should stand Andy. This statement alone is enough for my support.

'A supporters group of sycophantic egomaniacs and power-seekers (which is what I fear we'll end up with) is no good to the fans, and actually no good to the club.'

I'm with Andy and Gob. I think Brent's advisers / manipulators have come up with this approach to maximise their position and minimise the impact of the only body which can truly represent all the supporters, the Trust.

Regarding the cost of the share offer, don't let's forget that a large amount of Trust money has already been handed over ...

Also agree that this is now going to be the key issue in the Trust elections. If we get a good, representative GAS board, it'll be great for the club and the support. If not, it'll just be more of the same: egos, rumours and lies.

I don't particularly want a team full of shit-stirrers, that'd be far too easy to ignore. I want good, articulate people capable of critical thought. That rules a couple of people who'd love the gig out (sorry Ian, Chris). It probably rules Sparksy out too - surely he's far too entwined in all things club? He's not exactly shown much appetite for a critique of club owners over the years anyway.

Off the top of my head, a few PASOTI types who'd fit the role...Ed Blackburn. The Rev PAFC. Knecht.

Graham Clark? Intelligent, articulate, Trust experience, and while he may (or may not) be close to the Argyle 'establishment' having been part of the CPC, he's certainly never struck me as the type to be in anyone's pocket or indeed be in it for personal gain.

Nick wrote:

Graham Clark? Intelligent, articulate, Trust experience, and while he may (or may not) be close to the Argyle 'establishment' having been part of the CPC, he's certainly never struck me as the type to be in anyone's pocket or indeed be in it for personal gain.

Foreshore. Though I remember some criticising him for not inanely poking the dogs of war, or something along those lines.

I think Graham Clark is a good call, as he is intelligent and articulate.


Would it also be worth having a celebrity involved- Ron Bendell, Dawn French, the beast of Bodmin?

Andy, the 20% option is just that, an option. The incoming elected Trust board will need to do its homework, and then consult the members. I would imagine the funds would need to be raised over 2-3 years.

At the moment Gareth, Woz and I will be making some enquiries, and giving the new Board a head start when it comes in. At least one of the three of us will be on the new Board. We believe that there shouldn't be any proclamations of intent until a) the elected board is in place and b) the members are consulted (imo by a postal ballot).

More later.

(PS Nice to hear from you Andy!)

I see the GT's seat is being questioned by the avocado bloke on pasoti. His points are quite valid- how can the GT's sit on an independent fans' board when they are linked into the club? They need the club for the pyramid suite for the Fansfests- are they going to be keen to criticise the managemnt of the club (which could lead to rent increases/ loss of venue?).

Nick wrote:

Graham Clark? Intelligent, articulate, Trust experience, and while he may (or may not) be close to the Argyle 'establishment' having been part of the CPC, he's certainly never struck me as the type to be in anyone's pocket or indeed be in it for personal gain.

Thank you for the kind comments but I refer you to the post I made earlier on 'the other site'!


"Just for the record I am very content with just being a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst. and I am not seeking any further representational role. I am particularly anxious that the opportunity for proper supporter engagement extends well beyond what you may identify as the former CPers to avoid the sort of rumbling / accusation to which you refer.

The proposal of the supervisory board was one that James Brent himself first mentioned to the the last CP meeting that coincided with his completion of the purchase of the club. It was very much his idea for a proper means of the widest supporter engagement. I welcome the opportunity for diversity of representation in the way the proposal has been constructed and I hope we are able to see 'more flesh on the bones' very soon."

If it really was James Brent's idea then he has a hell of a lot to learn! Maybe he needs a couple of good advisers? Oh, hang on!

Interesting thread from Pasoti about this, particularly the final post from Mark Oatley querying who the accountants might be? Wonder if he will get called scum or the post removed for being controversial?

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

This is the sort of thing that has caused all the problems with the Green Taverners.

Quote :

We are also looking at the best way to trade as Limited company, and to be able to continue to run future events, the need to have a limited company when you are supplying a service, as opposed to being a charity contribution.

For the hundredth time, they weren't a registered charity, and in my view, and almost certainly the authorities, the monies received were not "charitable" donations. They were payments made to the staffto compensate for their unpaid wages that certainly helped the administrators to hang on for as long as they did. And correct me if I'm wrong but payments since James Brent took over his responsibilities have been used to pay down debts owed by the new owners. .... hiow on earth can that be charitable ?
I'm delighted they now want to become a ltd company ... about bleddy time too. Many enjoy the fan fests .... good for them, not my scene, but something similar should have been done years ago. At least now, there will be no possible confusion in what fans are contributing to..... the club ..... not some charity.

greenjock wrote:

Interesting thread from Pasoti about this, particularly the final post from Mark Oatley querying who the accountants might be? Wonder if he will get called scum or the post removed for being controversial?

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

Tis surely a joke, Jock!

On another note, shame you're ruling yourself out, Graham, but I can see why. I'm sure people will do well to continue listening to you when you've got something of relevance to say.

Seems there's going to be a fair amount of fan consultation required for this fair fan consultation idea to get wind in its sails.

Yes a few interesting comments on that thread.

The GTs, with respect, represent only themselves and from what I understand are a very small percentage of the fan-base indeed, yet they are to be provided a position of fan representation on the basis that the position is gifted owing to their fund raising efforts for the staff that will also save the owner, James Brent, a small fortune.

James Brent is very generous when it comes to handing out gifts under the guise of "fan representation", but it appears that the only ones to hold such positions are those that have greatly assisted him in the purchase of land at Central Park. All claim to be or have been representative of the fans, yet not a single one has ever been given a mandate from the fans themselves.

Meanwhile, the Trust who will be the only genuine organisation with a mandate to act of behalf of the fans, appear to be excluded by way of a watered down significance.

With due respect to James Brent, the fans will be the ones that say who will represent them, not James Brent.

We need to see how this plays out but as things stand I hope the Trust withdraws from this "James Brent selected" group named GAS and as others have said, becomes a Rottweiler snapping at the feet of those with self serving agendas. It's becoming more and more obvious that this "selected" group are simply those that helped Brent purchase land and have helped him to save money, they hold no significance what-so-ever when it comes to fans representation.

Nick wrote:

greenjock wrote:

Interesting thread from Pasoti about this, particularly the final post from Mark Oatley querying who the accountants might be? Wonder if he will get called scum or the post removed for being controversial?

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

Tis surely a joke, Jock!

On another note, shame you're ruling yourself out, Graham, but I can see why. I'm sure people will do well to continue listening to you when you've got something of relevance to say.

Seems there's going to be a fair amount of fan consultation required for this fair fan consultation idea to get wind in its sails.

I sincerely hope so Nick, but no response to it yet! After everything I've witnessed to do with Argyle recently, I couldn't rule it out with any certainty

Tony Chowell's view on the board which seems to make sense-

JB made it quite clear the main Board will be in charge and quite corrrectly. It is also clear the similaritty between our version and Germany stops at the name, otherwise the supervisory Board will be able to sack and hire Main Board members and JB will not want himself kicked off his own Board

As always, the devil is in the detail, but, I do not see JB opening himself up to financial exposure and leave himself open to the Sack! he is using the device of a SB to fulfill a promise for greater engagement, no more, no less. That is not to say he is not a brave man or that he runs some risks, just that all his risks are quatifiable and virtually risk free.

In a years time people will only worry about league position and whether we are "going for it" There will ofcourse be a few pseuds sat around, drinking poor quality red wine and smoking bad roll ups discussing the new marxist agenda oh and can they get the pasty supplier at HP changed.

In short, change will bring no change and as Argyle fans we can rest assurred our dreams are contained and by the popular refrain "Same old Argyle"

Love it.

COYGs

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

penzancepirate wrote:

For what it's worth Andy, I believe Brent is not the only one that would wish the Trust marginalised.
At his own admission, this latest owner doesn't know diddly about anything football shaped let alone football fans. His whole impression will have been shaped by the usual suspects and they will have been working overtime convincing him how horrible we all are and how we musn't be let near anything called a decision. If the Trust had been thought highly of by the CPers and Brent, Chris Webb wouldn't have pogoed over to the President's hat.
Remember we're dealing with a Citibank boy here looking for a green input into the blue Big Society. It certainly won't be a red big society he's after.

The Trust is highly thought of by this CPer and a couple of others I know.

Rickler wrote:

seadog wrote:

If as already projected over yonder the vote is only open to season ticket holders and POTD fans, a lot of trust members will be left out.

And every single 'Exile' will be left out, unless they want to make a pilgrimage home!

Absolutely ridiculous that an 'away' POTD fan would be able to vote, and me a fan since 72 wouldn't!

Let us not forget who "advised" Brent about 'fan' participation - The CP group! No wonder they wouldn't answer any questions about what they recommended. No wonder there are 'places' made available to them.

I suspect Newell will be the GT rep. And you wonder why that little group gets to nominate whoever they want (who are the members anyway?) well it's all really simple. They supply the money to the club, they quite literally 'bought' their way in.

If this is the way the club is to be run, God help us.

Rickler - there isn't a 'membership' of the GTs. Anyone who helps out IS a GT. And will guarantee you that Ian Newell will not be the GTs rep.

That really is a big relief Damon and restores a little of my faith in the GT's.

What's your opinion Damon, do you think the GTs should have a position in this set up and if so, why? - Genuine question.

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Rickler - there isn't a 'membership' of the GTs. Anyone who helps out IS a GT. And will guarantee you that Ian Newell will not be the GTs rep.

As Gob says... Thanks very much for the reassurance concerning Newell.

Since you state that remark with such confidence, perhaps you could enlighten us at to how the GT rep will be chosen?

As there isn't a 'membership' how will the process work?

I must say Damon, your replies on here have been very candid and considered. Very much appreciated... and a goode example of how certain things should be done. Despite my often mentioned concerns over certain issues, I don't think anyone can fault the actual way in which the Taverners have conducted themselves throughout this whole sorry mess.

I don't think you can have a supervisory board scruntinising Argyle without being able to ask questions of and scruntinise potential members. The GTs is a good example. Who would have known ,if the Avocado hadn't asked questions, that the GTs were in the process of becoming a limited company. Openess about their own board of directors will be a must. Together how the aim to choose their rep.

I would expect other GAS Board members to be open to question and if necessary their online and 'real' life personas to be examined. Imagine a bankrupt, a keyboard warrior who is abusive online or someother ne'er do well getting on the board because no-one called them to account.