The First Meeting to Discuss The GAS Board

The first meeting has been held to discuss the GAS Board; in attendance were David Wheeler of Plymouth University, representatives of various Argyle Supporters Groups - Plymouth Branch, London Branch, North Devon Greens, Cornish Branch, Senior Greens, The Argyle Fans' Trust and also a number of independent supporters, myself included. Also present was Plymouth's premier radio personality and media darling, Chris Webb. Oh, and Sparksy was there too. Chris chaired the meeting but was at pains to point out that his only involvement was to co-ordinate and facilitate the meetings taking place.

The first meeting concentrated on trying to establish the aims and objectives of the Board, define it's purpose and establish exactly who were the stakeholders that the Board should be aiming to engage with, and how this would be done.

The first thing that was acknowledged was that the meeting was not representative of the fanbase as a whole. There were no women present, and with one exception the men present were all, well, getting on a bit (I'm 45, and I suspect that I was the 3rd youngest person in the room). So the first thing to say is that, if there are any women or younger supporters who want to get involved, please do so, your input will be invaluable.

David Wheeler gave an estimate that there were approximately 20,000 potential stakeholders, ie people who have an interest in Argyle, from the go-to-every-game-come-what-may supporter, through to those who may look out for Argyle's results and only attend Home Park once in a blue moon. It was also acknowledged that many supporters are, for reasons of geography, unable to attend HP. Those exiles also need to be considered when it comes to engaging with fans and holding the elections, something which I know concerned many people.

The basic statement of intent for the GAS Board was put forward as follows: "To ensure that the voices of all fans are captured and have influence in the affairs of the club."

The debate that followed, on the various means by which fans could be engaged, made the point that the Board, as well as existing to interact with the main Board, should also be accountable to the fanbase and be prepared to report back, and engage with fans on a fan-to-fan basis, with the aim of driving up the number of fans who become regular supporters, as opposed to occasionals. The point was made that clubs that mobilise the fanbase well tend to do well.

Tony Hooper/Cholwell suggested that Board representatives should view their positions on the Board as if they were local councillors, dealing on the one side with the club, as councillors deal with their relevant local authority, and on the other hand also dealing with the fans, ie their constituents. This to me seems a sensible way for the individuals elected to the Board to approach their work.

There was a large amount of time given over to discussing the roles of the various supporters groups, and how they might best be represented. This is one area that I think will take up much discussion time at future meetings. The role of the Trust was also discussed, with someone making the point that the 20% shareholding offer would undoubtedly be an issue that the GAS Board would discuss at some point, and was there the possibility of a conflict arising within this, either in the discussions themselves, with Trust members on the GAS Board, or with the Trust eventually owning that 20%. Also discussed was whether the Trust should in effect become the GAS Board, but there were sufficient Trust sceptics (Hooper/Cholwell isn't the only one!) present to point out that many people chose not to join the Trust, so they would be disenfranchised if the GAS Board went down a Trust-only route.

It was agreed that at the core of the Board's principles would be honesty, openness and inclusiveness. Much debate was had around whether 'unity' should be a goal of the Board; at this point Graham Clark singled me out as being someone who (in his words) 'sat on the sidelines, sniping.' Peter Ryan responded by saying that actually, disunity and a lack of harmony can, if harnessed correctly, be positive forces. In the end it was generally agreed that inclusiveness was preferable to unity as a goal for the Board.

David Wheeler closed the meeting by making an interesting observation. He said that, if the GAS Board was established correctly, people in 50 years time may look back on it as something pioneering and groundbreaking - much in the same way as the establishment of the Co-operative movement is now viewed.

I'm sure others that were there will chip in with bits and pieces I've missed out, but that's the best that I can manage at the moment from my less-than-contemporaneous notes. Undoubtedly there will be questions that I will do my best to answer. But please bear in mind that this was the first of a number of meetings designed to fully formulate the way the GAS Board will work, how it will be constituted, how it will be elected and how it will develop. This was essentially a meeting about future meetings. Any points people wish to raise at future meetings, put them on here and I'll do my best with it. Or try and get along yourselves. There's a way to go yet before anything is finalised.

Thanks Andy - first report to appear anywhere

Was the concept of the GASBoard scrutinising the club board and holding them to account covered in the discussions about aims and objectives? Sorry if I've missed something, but it sounds as if the discussion focussed mostly on how the GASBoard can find out what fans want and try to get it, rather than on the need for it to work in both directions.

And yes - inclusive rather than united has to be the way forward. I've kept banging on about how the only thing we've all got in common is our support for the club, and any attempt to make the GASBoard speak with one voice - unless it's following proper discussion, debate, negotiation and agreement - neglects this at everybody's peril.

Yes, scrutiny of the main Board was discussed, including scrutiny of the finances. More to come on that subject, I reckon, but at this stage it looks to me as if what comes out of these discussions could be a Supporters board with real teeth, working in both directions. I would hazard a guess that in the end, the GAS Board will have a pretty wide-reaching remit.

Who the hell does this Graham Clark think he is and what is his background ?

Tringreen wrote:

Who the hell does this Graham Clark think he is and what is his background ?

I wouldn't get too hung up on it, Tring. His comment annoyed me at the time because it was unnecessary and completely at odds with the otherwise cordial and constructive nature of the meeting. I didn't respond other than to give him the sort of look that I normally reserve for my 4-year-old when he's being particularly naughty. It does seem, however that some people, to coin a phrase, just can't let it lie, which is a shame.

Thanks for the update.

Graham Clark?, pffft, how disappointing.

The stand-out thing for me was David Wheeler's '20,000 potential stakeholders' estimation. It seems very low to the point of suspicion, especially on a day when plans for a new grandstand are announced. This is for a different thread though.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Thanks for the update.

Graham Clark?, pffft, how disappointing.

The stand-out thing for me was David Wheeler's '20,000 potential stakeholders' estimation. It seems very low to the point of suspicion, especially on a day when plans for a new grandstand are announced. This is for a different thread though.

Apparently the Argyle database has 105,000 names and addresses on it!

I would guess, though, that it needs a bit of cleaning up; I suspect people appear on that at whichever addresses they've lived at when buying tickets, so somebody like myself, who's moved house a couple of times in recent years, will be on the database more than once.

I bet Graham Clark has met James Brent

Thanks Andy.

Pity Tring wasn't there, you'd have been off the hook!!

Merv P.

Greenjock wrote:

I bet Graham Clark has met James Brent

Well, as it happens...

When the meeting finished I made my way down to gate 26 to meet up with the other Trust volunteers doing the kiosks today. Graham and Peter were just in front of me, I was chatting to Tony Hooper. As we got to the gate, James Brent walked in. He saw us, greeted us cordially, shook our hands, and when asked why he wasn't at the GAS meeting, he explained that he'd just held a meeting of the full Board.

Tony, somewhat mischieviously, asked if the minutes had been posted on pasoti yet.

JB's reply was: "Oh good grief, I hope not."

I couldn't help myself. "They might not be on pasoti, but they went on ATD an hour ago."

With that, I left to meet up with Woz and Laura....

He's a member !

One of Napoleon's CP mates you know.

No sniping from the sidelines Andy but 'we don't want you involved either'

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

pafcineurope wrote:

Thanks Andy.

Pity Tring wasn't there, you'd have been off the hook!!

Merv P.

Moi ? The visionary ? They should be clamouring for my take on things.

It all sounds a bit Aviva if you ask me. Just a way of the owner trying to get the terminally tinted to pay his bills.

Am prepared to walk from Tring and buy pints and pasties for all ATD members, if Brent turns out to be the great guy we are being led to believe.

Anyone who'd prefer to drink pi$$ is welcome to do so. That's what the Avivas reckoned when I made a similar offer on the farm, if Argyle, with Stapleton involved got to the Prem.

My moneywas always safe

Andy_Symons wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

I bet Graham Clark has met James Brent

Well, as it happens...

When the meeting finished I made my way down to gate 26 to meet up with the other Trust volunteers doing the kiosks today. Graham and Peter were just in front of me, I was chatting to Tony Hooper. As we got to the gate, James Brent walked in. He saw us, greeted us cordially, shook our hands, and when asked why he wasn't at the GAS meeting, he explained that he'd just held a meeting of the full Board.

Tony, somewhat mischieviously, asked if the minutes had been posted on pasoti yet.

JB's reply was: "Oh good grief, I hope not."

I couldn't help myself. "They might not be on pasoti, but they went on ATD an hour ago."

With that, I left to meet up with Woz and Laura....

Brilliant !

Tringreen wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

I bet Graham Clark has met James Brent

Well, as it happens...

When the meeting finished I made my way down to gate 26 to meet up with the other Trust volunteers doing the kiosks today. Graham and Peter were just in front of me, I was chatting to Tony Hooper. As we got to the gate, James Brent walked in. He saw us, greeted us cordially, shook our hands, and when asked why he wasn't at the GAS meeting, he explained that he'd just held a meeting of the full Board.

Tony, somewhat mischieviously, asked if the minutes had been posted on pasoti yet.

JB's reply was: "Oh good grief, I hope not."

I couldn't help myself. "They might not be on pasoti, but they went on ATD an hour ago."

With that, I left to meet up with Woz and Laura....

Brilliant !

I bet he logged in to check

Tringreen wrote:

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

Quote :

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.

WTF was he doing at todays meeting?

Tring - my first impressions are that it will be the supporters (whoever wants to get involved) that will set the parameters for the GAS Board; Brent is being completely 'hands off' and David Wheeler is acting as Devils Advocate in provoking debate and getting people to look at differing viewpoints. Certainly the attendees today didn't fit into your 'typical Aviva' stereotype. People like Peter Ryan, Wozzer, Tim Chown and myself certainly aren't what I would consider happy-clappy Brent groupies. And Tony Hooper/Cholwell is very much his own man.

Look at it with an open mind. It could, of course go completely tits-up, as could any new innovation. It could also turn out to be unique, positive and ground breaking. Only time will tell.

Hmmmmmm

An interesting meeting.....

Jon

JonB wrote:

Hmmmmmm

An interesting meeting.....

Jon

Did you get there, Jon? Apologies if you were there and I didn't see you.

I was the late suit who had to dash quick at the end!

ok we'll just have to wait and see the mix of the elected members and whether or not there will be inclusivity. Also, whether or not the board will have any real influence.

I notice you reported that Brent wasn't there because he was meeting with the real board. How convenient.

I know I'm a cynic but I don't believe all this talk will translate into anything much at all. Am prepared to be amazed !

Can't post much on my ever-crashing iPad but will add something later!

Jon

Aha, right!

Looking back at my original post, have I missed anything of significance, or is there anything I've reported that you think needs changing/clarifying?

My feel of the first comment I got from you, Andy, was that it was "an interesting meeting" and that it would be the first of several exploratory meetings before anything solid would emerge. I was relieved - if anything was ready to be up and running yet, I would be concerned.

Has Brent even given a remit and level of influence to be awarded the Gas upon the main board ?

Tringreen wrote:

Has Brent even given a remit and level of influence to be awarded the Gas upon the main board ?

No, he hasn't. And I am still unsure about what the GASB can offer that the Trust couldn't, given time.