The GAS board

knecht wrote:

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

.....
Squire Brent has (again) played a very clever game.

Selling or giving 20% of the Club to the Trust is a smart move for Brent as

1. In a 20% v 80% fight we all know who wins
2. He can fulfil his statements about a community based club by saying that the fans own a part of it.
3. We're only talking about 20% of the football club and all the football club actually owns is the players contracts (i.e. liabilities)
4. Brent will still retain full control over and all profits from development (in cahoots with the Council)
5. You can bet that Brent won't be attending too many of these face to face fans meeting where the plebs will go on about the car park, free buses, the poor quality of the pasties etc. He'll get some mug (we all know who) to go instead.

There are certainly important questions to be answered but no-one knows the answers yet.

Why do you assume that the split will be 20:80
The fans actually may own part of it - and that is a step that hasn't been taken before.

Some of your comments may come to pass but so far (with all my usual caveats) he has delivered what he promised. Let's wait & see. Nobody yet knows the detail of Brent's offer to the supporters or how that will pan out in terms of debt, profits or the extent of ownership of the assets.

I know where my money is Knecht. In my pocket !

Tringreen wrote:

knecht wrote:

.......
There are certainly important questions to be answered but no-one knows the answers yet.

Why do you assume that the split will be 20:80
The fans actually may own part of it - and that is a step that hasn't been taken before.

Some of your comments may come to pass but so far (with all my usual caveats) he has delivered what he promised. Let's wait & see. Nobody yet knows the detail of Brent's offer to the supporters or how that will pan out in terms of debt, profits or the extent of ownership of the assets.

I know where my money is Knecht. In my pocket !

That's what I was saying Tring. Nobody knows any of the details so it is best to keep your money safe until you know. Surely you weren't meaning you doubt the offer?! That would be unnecessarily cynical at this stage.

I do doubt the offer. He has shown great business acumen in acquiring the club and accompanying benefits but a very poor judge of character by thinking Webb n Newell represent the fanbase. He knows they're thick and probably believes all other football fans are as stupid as they are.
One look inside a fanfest will confirm his views.

But................ they number only a few hundred.
Don't think he's seen the bigger picture yet.

Brent has appointed Chris Webb to the honorary role of President. He's sent Mr Newell a letter. I'm not sure where you get your information about Mr Newell's influence over Brent's decision-making? He may be more aware than you think....

I think you may be right that he doesn't really understand what football is all about yet. He has said as much himself. That may or may not be a bad thing. Taking a fresh look at a club within an ailing "industry" (how I hesitated before using that word) may bring a new positive slant. Hopefully, the likes of Peter Jones and the Emirates financier guy may mitigate some of the ignorance. Whilst there are lots of unanswered questions re his engagement with either the Trust or the GASB, if it works it can only be a good thing. It may also help fill in some of the gaps in his knowledge of what it is like to be a fan of a football club. That's one of the many reasons I think the Trust is important.

I will be fascinated to see where we will all be in, say, 5 years time!

You may well be right knecht but while we wait questions can be asked and comments made. Perhaps that's what Brent is looking for so he can adjust his position accordingly.

knecht wrote:

Brent has appointed Chris Webb to the honorary role of President. He's sent Mr Newell a letter. I'm not sure where you get your information about Mr Newell's influence over Brent's decision-making? He may be more aware than you think....

I think you may be right that he doesn't really understand what football is all about yet. He has said as much himself. That may or may not be a bad thing. Taking a fresh look at a club within an ailing "industry" (how I hesitated before using that word) may bring a new positive slant. Hopefully, the likes of Peter Jones and the Emirates financier guy may mitigate some of the ignorance. Whilst there are lots of unanswered questions re his engagement with either the Trust or the GASB, if it works it can only be a good thing. It may also help fill in some of the gaps in his knowledge of what it is like to be a fan of a football club. That's one of the many reasons I think the Trust is important.

I will be fascinated to see where we will all be in, say, 5 years time!

Give the people a real reason to believe and they will come.

All we have right now is personal positioning and absolutely nothing real on the bones of the engagement offer.

Having followed the club for 50 years I have become a tad cynical, admittedly.

GOB wrote:

You may well be right knecht but while we wait questions can be asked and comments made. Perhaps that's what Brent is looking for so he can adjust his position accordingly.

Absolutely! And if he is adjusting his position that's also a good thing. Asking questions & making comments is good. I just hope that he continues to be given copies of ATD's threads - the discussion is (usually) good. He might learn something.

[quote="knecht"]

GOB wrote:

You may well be right knecht but while we wait questions can be asked and comments made. Perhaps that's what Brent is looking for so he can adjust his position accordingly.

He will only be shown edited and censored versions. We have no direct line.

Peter Jones used to feed me info and might be a point of contact but I have no contact details.

I'd be surprised if he does any more than humour Newell n Webb.

All this in the public domain eh ? Not like Pasoti is it ?

Quote :

@Chris_Webb1
Chris Webb
Off to Home Park....GASB update tomorrow. Already looking forward to Saturday #pafc #argyletilidie #greenarmy

Tweet from yesterday. Don't think anything has come out as yet today.

The excitement is hell to live with!

There's an update on the proposed process on the OS (apols can't link at the mo).

Jon

Thanks John
here's the link
gasboard

Interesting comments regarding those that might want to invest.
I would love to know just what influence this board will have, or maybe that itself is up for grabs.

Yep, I've just posted the same observation re Chris's commentary regarding board members potentially bringing in money..... Not quite sure what I think about this, not really what I expected & whilst on one hand any income generation must be a good thing, it would change the dynamic of the group.

Jon

Jamesy boy stated he didn't want any 'walleted' people on the actual pafc board of directors, but he seems to want them on the supporters' board. I don't quite follow the logic.

It's strange to see the way in which these proposals seem to fly in the face of what was originally proposed. From a committee of seven people, 3 nominated, 4 elected, we now have a situation where, it would seem, you need to be able to demonstrate that you can bring something tangible to the table, whether it's personal wealth, contacts or whatever is eventually decided.

It's almost as if fans who will question, probe and analyse are being sidelined, to be replaced with the more 'corporate' type of supporter. And as for only 15 people being able to attend the meetings where all this is to be discussed, well once all the various supporters groups (and websites?) get a rep there, the bulk of supporters and potential candidates will be left fighting over crumbs.

It seems to me, at first sight, that a fairly straightforward idea is now being made unneccesarily complicated, and another monster is being created.

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty and I wondered how long it would be before the £ was mentioned, now we have it.

So how much is a GAS membership going to cost?

The President responded to JonB's reference to money from GASB members by saying that wasn't the case. My opinion is that it states it fairly clearly. But these aren't Mr Brent's suggestions - they stemmed from a meeting between the President & the university bloke.

Quote :

Perform a stakeholder mapping exercise

Talk like that fills me with dread

Someone should just hand him John Lloyds proposals and take it on from there.

With Portsmouth is the deep do-do again so soon after coming out of admin the only thing I really want from the GasBoard is to make sure our club doesn't go the same way. They need to be a really awkward squad.

Andy_Symons wrote:

It's strange to see the way in which these proposals seem to fly in the face of what was originally proposed. From a committee of seven people, 3 nominated, 4 elected, we now have a situation where, it would seem, you need to be able to demonstrate that you can bring something tangible to the table, whether it's personal wealth, contacts or whatever is eventually decided.

It's almost as if fans who will question, probe and analyse are being sidelined, to be replaced with the more 'corporate' type of supporter. And as for only 15 people being able to attend the meetings where all this is to be discussed, well once all the various supporters groups (and websites?) get a rep there, the bulk of supporters and potential candidates will be left fighting over crumbs.

It seems to me, at first sight, that a fairly straightforward idea is now being made unneccesarily complicated, and another monster is being created.

Look. We might live fairly near each other. We might share certain political and social objectives. But I draw the line at you saying what I wanted to say - AGAIN!!

A month after the initial proposals were made at the Guildhall meeting, it seems it's all gone back to the drawing board. Everything seems to be up for grabs - membership, consitution, aims and objectives. What's bringing money to the club got to do with fan engagement, anyway?

And I don't think it's any coincidence, either. Not given the discussions about putting forward a Trust slate.

The shirt man will be in the frame !

So, no money in the boardroom but the superfans must earn their right to sit with the suits ?

Animal Farm FC.

No thanks.

There was no flesh put on the bones of the proposal at the Guildhall meeting - other than the 3 nominated & 4 elected.

The main concerns I have at the very limited outline here are 1. the initial thrashing out of the proposal is to be done only by 15 people. I don't think a full and meaningful discussion can be had in a large meeting but I'm not sure 15 is enough. 2. the suggestion that a place on the GASB may be available to people "bringing money" but maybe that will be explained later today and 3 the nod towards a place for season ticket holders seems to show that TonyC's "organisation" will win its place - it almost seems to be an automatic seat for him personally.

knecht wrote:

There was no flesh put on the bones of the proposal at the Guildhall meeting - other than the 3 nominated & 4 elected.

The main concerns I have at the very limited outline here are 1. the initial thrashing out of the proposal is to be done only by 15 people. I don't think a full and meaningful discussion can be had in a large meeting but I'm not sure 15 is enough. 2. the suggestion that a place on the GASB may be available to people "bringing money" but maybe that will be explained later today and 3 the nod towards a place for season ticket holders seems to show that TonyC's "organisation" will win its place - it almost seems to be an automatic seat for him personally.

I did wonder, in the wake of the GT's saying that they wouldn't be taking a place on the board, whether the vacancy would be offered to a 'season ticket holders' representative'?

This could of course just be another example of me being too cynical for my own good.

The way I read it is that it's the 'constituencies' (the supporter's groups, for example) will possibly bring "money to invest in the club" through their members, rather than individuals. The bit about bringing "money to buy season-tickets"... well, I'm lost there. No idea what that means.

As for the "stakeholders" - surely that's each and every Plymouth Argyle fan?

Why is is all this phrased in business jargon? How the hell is the average fan meant to relate to phrases like "a stakeholder mapping exercise"? It's just noise.

Nick wrote:

Why is is all this phrased in business jargon? How the hell is the average fan meant to relate to phrases like "a stakeholder mapping exercise"? It's just noise.

Yes. A bit like Salsa Verde having a mission statement.

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