The First Meeting to Discuss The GAS Board

Dougie wrote:

.
Finally Gob continues to plow a lonely furrow on Pasoti where odious is becoming the new freak and weirdo.

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

I think you mean Grovehill?

And sad to see the normally so polite Tony Cholwell resorting to the 'odious' tactic of bringing Grovehill's family into this by suggesting that even they are fed up with his "mithering", as it is phrased.

Newell's generally 'odious' behavour has set a precedent and is now rubbing off on other posters.

I have a question for Tony, but since he doesnt do ATD, (not enough season ticket holders?) then maybe someone would like to speculate on what they think Tony's vision of the GASB will need to be, to be able to hold the club to "acount," and what sort of 'eyesight' they will need to do this?

Tony Cholwell wrote:

.

...he has offered the Trust 20% and has initiated a plan to give the fans a direct "eyes" on the business and the ability to hold the Board to account. He needn't have offered any of this, but he has. If he hadn't most fans would still have been happy they still had a club, now they have the chance to have agreater say than before. Yes, Mr Brent still owns it and Yes we dont yet know all the details, but (and a Big but) he has made offers he need not have yet still has.

Personally, I don't think the GasB are going to be given X-ray glasses.

Thing is the Grovehill is right, is JB really gonna let the GASB have any sort of veto on club matters ? yeah right! of course he isnt. Good exmaple about selling the player.
Will they see whos been paid what and be able to challenge expenditure? er no.

Waste of time, a load of hot air & an BIG distraction from the spectre fo the Conference that looms large on the horizon.

Ricks (& more), your scepticism has been well-founded over the last few years & it would be nonsensical of me - of anyone perhaps - to try & argue against it.

That said, many of the points that are being raised have not yet been discussed in any meaningful way by any of the people looking to be part of the Supervisory Board.

As I said in my longer, earlier post, I do think that there will need to be a considerable leap of faith in setting the GAS Board up & with near-certainty it will need to change & develop as it finds it's workable position.

I suspect that Saturday will see the development of a bit more substance to the current musings, but again with near-certainty mistakes will be made & people will fall out.  The 'forming, norming, storming & performing' model will, I'm sure, be seen, just as it was with the Trust.  And ATD.....

It's a sign of a growing group.

Finally, there's just a couple of points from others that I wanted to help with:

Re Sue P, we were told that she intended to be at the first meeting, but was committed with 'fan of the year award' commitments.  

Having said that, again somewhat controversially it may be - just may be mind - that this group does not need to be fully representative of the wider fan base.  If it is successful in performing the role that I hope it does, individual skill sets may be more important than having an appropriate wide-ranging diversity in post holders.  Perhaps unlike the Trust, a successful GAS Board may not be that publicly visible; it's work quite detailed, quite dull & quite low profile.

The need for transparency will probably balance this somewhat, but as I've said previously, my view is that this Board is a tactic, a piece of methodology to achieve something good.  It is not an end in itself & needn't play to the crowd.

Let's give it a go.  At the worst we can nervously nod to the soothsayers & accept that we were wrong.  At the best we can achieve something that many of us have called for, for many years; an accountable, ethical club with us fans at its heart.

Surely it's worth that leap of faith.

Jon

I agree with Plympton Pilgrim. If Brent were to offer the GAS role to the Trust and encourage supporters of all persuasions to join, we would have a democratically elected body that would grow to several thousand members. More importantly, it would naturally have more influence and would be best placed to pick up the pieces should the worst happen again.

One inclusive, Argyle fans representation.

JonB.. Andy... (and Tony).

I applaud your written contributions, and am glad that you are attending the GasB meetings concerning the club.
The club needs people like you!

I am pretty sure you are all thinking about standing for election - depending on certain 'conditions'?

With that said....

Nobody on the fans side (meaning you and others?) seem to be 'proactive' in setting out what their own personal 'vision' of what the GasB should be? What the 'wants and needs' are, and what the important things are, that really need to be overseen - and most importantly, how it all can be achieved?'

I can hardly say I blame anyone. Brent's vision seems to be changing from an 'accountable' to a 'dialogue' model?

But since we have been asked - how about the fans setting the agenda?

Ricks,

On page 2 of the 'Dapper suit' thread I mentioned this in part - how i think decisions should be scrutinised against published & agreed aims, objectives & values, but as ever, the devil will be in the detail.

At this (very early) stage, my view is that a pair from the GAS Board should attend (largely as observers) every main Board meeting & have full access to detailed club accounts.

I suspect that some of this will be 'closed' - issues of commercial sensitivity, etc the detail of which couldn't be shared too widely.

One thing that I'm not sure about is how this 'supervision' could be achieved in a timely, proximate manner & I am keen to work out the detail of how best to do this.

As for standing, I don't like to play positioning games & mentioned previously on this thread that I would like to be an inaugural member of this Board - how achievable that will be, I'm not sure. My desire is driven by two main things; my passion for Argyle & my skill set (I need to stop using this term!) - I currently undertake a similar role on a part time basis for the Home Office re some specific areas of the police service...... Hard but fair is my approach.....

As an aside, your suggestion that the fans take control of the direction is, I think, what James Brent's vision is... I did read a quote to that effect somewhere on here.

Hope that helps a little - still pretty vague I know!

If Brent genuinely wishes that the support base take a leading role, it is vital that fans with experience, integrity and vision are elected, not flag waving rabble rousers, or the self interested.

Rickler wrote:

Nobody on the fans side (meaning you and others?) seem to be 'proactive' in setting out what their own personal 'vision' of what the GasB should be? What the 'wants and needs' are, and what the important things are, that really need to be overseen - and most importantly, how it all can be achieved?

I think there are a variety of reasons why this is the case.

Jon has set out, very eloquently, his reasons for standing and some of his views of what he wants the GAS Board to become. Tony has made it clear that he is standing because he feels the Season Ticket holders need representation. That appears to be the sum of his manifesto at the moment, a strategy that I don't entirely agree with because I feel thet the 'independents' on the Board should be there to represent anyone who has an interest in Argyle, and by pinning his colours so firmly to one mast he may be isolating a lot of good, loyal supporters who, for whatever reason, don't have a season ticket.

For myself, I've always said that I want the GASBoard to be able to scrutinise any aspect of the main Board's decision making. I don't think there should be too much emphasis on micro-managing their activities - as long as the GASB is given proper access to the general picture, that should enable a constructive dialogue to take place. For example, I don't think, the GASB should concern itself with individual contract packages offered to players, but the overall wage bill should be looked at.

If the GASB is to succeed, there needs to be a leap of faith from both sides. The Board has to acknowledge that whoever is elected is in that position because they have the best interests of the club at heart, and should be trusted to act accordingly. The GASB needs to trust that it will be supplied with all the information necessary to perform its duties effectively.

What could I bring to the table? If I stand (and please bear in mind that, although numerous supporters, on and offline, have approached me about it, I won't make a decision until the meat is firmly on the bones) I will be a constructive, yet critical voice for supporters. I'll make myself available to all supporters, via both the internet and personally at the ground on match days, so that anyone can put their concerns directly to me. Anyone who wants to contact me directly will be able to do so, either via email or phone.

As far as my personal qualities and abilities go, in the past I've audited accounts for three voluntary organisations, a job that involves studying accounts with a forensic level of detail, something which will hold me in good stead if elected. If elected I would guarantee that I would pursue anything that I felt to be against the best interests of the club and its supporters. Doubtless some will try to portray me as a thoughtless troublemaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was closely involved in a huge number of initiatives to support the club and its staff during the administration period, and having seen the hardships suffered by the staff, I'm determined never to allow the club's owner (whoever that may be) to put the staff and supporters in that position again. My personal principles also mean that I would never accept any form of hospitality from the club that might be offered as a result of my participation in the GAS Board. I would not want my independence compromised in that way.

It's my view that the GAS Board needs to be composed of constructive critics. People who want to represent narrow sectional interests should think carefully about whether it's in the best interests of the club that they stand. I believe that the GAS Board should comprise of individuals who aren't afraid to ask difficult questions, demand answers that the Board may not be comfortable in giving, and should remain first and foremost representatives of the Green Army, rather than trying to gain a place in the spotlight for their own personal advancement.

JonB wrote:

.........
At this (very early) stage, my view is that a pair from the GAS Board should attend (largely as observers) every main Board meeting & have full access to detailed club accounts.

I suspect that some of this will be 'closed' - issues of commercial sensitivity, etc the detail of which couldn't be shared too widely.

.........

How would this be any different to what the Trust would offer if they bought into the 20% offer? (My response to Andy's post is similar)

At the moment all energies appear to be directed toward the GASB. There is a risk here of the possibility of the Trust being subsumed by that body's energies. It's even conceivable that if both the Trust and the GASB both continue to operate they will be merely duplicating roles or, worse, in opposition.

I keep saying this but what will the GASB have to offer that the Trust can't? I know it will become more clear as meetings progress but there is a danger that before we have chance to weigh up what is best for the fans/the club structures will already be in place.

Have the Trust got any further in their discussions with Mr Brent?

There's been a couple of references to my standing. Just to clarify, this would depend on (a) the remit of the GASBoard and (b) the Trust putting up a slate in the election - and even in those circumstances I only said I might consider standing.

As things stand, I'm yet to be convinced we need anything other than the Trust, both to represent fans' views and to scrutinise the actions of the club.

And - not having a dig at anybody, mind - I've no intention of being a token woman. Been there, done that, got loads of t-shirts.

JonB wrote:

Ricks,

On page 2 of the 'Dapper suit' thread I mentioned this in part - how i think decisions should be scrutinised against published & agreed aims, objectives & values, but as ever, the devil will be in the detail.

At this (very early) stage, my view is that a pair from the GAS Board should attend (largely as observers) every main Board meeting & have full access to detailed club accounts.

I suspect that some of this will be 'closed' - issues of commercial sensitivity, etc the detail of which couldn't be shared too widely.

One thing that I'm not sure about is how this 'supervision' could be achieved in a timely, proximate manner & I am keen to work out the detail of how best to do this.

As for standing, I don't like to play positioning games & mentioned previously on this thread that I would like to be an inaugural member of this Board - how achievable that will be, I'm not sure. My desire is driven by two main things; my passion for Argyle & my skill set (I need to stop using this term!) - I currently undertake a similar role on a part time basis for the Home Office re some specific areas of the police service...... Hard but fair is my approach.....

As an aside, your suggestion that the fans take control of the direction is, I think, what James Brent's vision is... I did read a quote to that effect somewhere on here.

Hope that helps a little - still pretty vague I know!

That's the point though isn't it- for the GAS Board to be truly supervisory, it would need as much (if not more) access as a full Board member, which isn't going to happen.

My fear is that the club will do something unpopular at some point in the future and when the shit hits the fan, they'll say " the GAS Board was made aware of this months ago and didn't raise an objection." in much they same way as everyone "knew" that Brent wasn't going to pay the staff wages in full, and everyone "knew" that the money going into buckets since the takeover was coming straight off Brent's liabilities.

Hi Knecht,

For what it's worth I share many of your thoughts as to how the relationships between the different groups & organisations may pan out.  Indeed, it's my hunch that the Supervisory Board may in time become something like a sub-committee of the Trust; everyone willing of course.

However for now, it's my opinion that it's not the right thing to happen.  The post-administration Trust seems to me to be 're-balancing' a little & is working out how it's day to day activities will meet its aims.  The potential opportunity to own 20% of their club is a huge decision for the Trust; the impact of which can't be overestimated.

For the Trust to be working through these issues, having these internal debates, puts it - for me - in a different position to that which James Brent seems to want the Supervisory Board to be.  Indeed, it may be that the Supervisory Board ends up being 'relentlessly critical', something agin the aims of the Trust.

Bearing in mind that no decisions have been taken; that nothing has been set up, it's difficult to answer many of these concerns with any real evidence however the proposed sale of the 20% provides an interesting case in point.

I presume that the Trust will debate - & vote(?) - as to whether to own part of Argyle, deciding whether any such ownership will help it achieve its cause, & then act accordingly.

Likewise - presumably - the Supervisory Board will review whether the decision to sell the 20% is in line with the stated objectives & values of PAFC, irrespective of any resultant impact upon the Trust......

As such, I do - currently - see the value in having the two separate groups.

Just a couple of related bits to end on - I am (albeit belatedly) a Trust member & hugely admire what it has achieved.  Secondly, don't forget that there were Trust leaders present at last weeks initial meeting - from memory, when Prof Wheeler suggested that the Supervisory Board & the Trust be one & the same, I don't recall there being any real support apparent.  Of course, I may have got that wrong.

Cheers,

Jon

Edited to add: I know that I don't need to labour the point, but the above is purely hypothetical - the ramblngs & musings of a man about to crack open his first pre-match Scrumpy Jack...

JonB wrote:

Just a couple of related bits to end on - I am (albeit belatedly) a Trust member & hugely admire what it has achieved.  Secondly, don't forget that there were Trust leaders present at last weeks initial meeting - from memory, when Prof Wheeler suggested that the Supervisory Board & the Trust be one & the same, I don't recall there being any real support apparent.  Of course, I may have got that wrong.

Hi Jon,

DW made the "could be one and the same" comment in response to my observation that many of the proposed functions of the GAS Board suggested up to that point in the meeting had been performed by the Trust during the club's administration. Like you, I'm currently quite open minded about this, and interested to see how the GAS Board discussions pan out in the next few weeks.

The Trust is to a large extent governed by the Objects in its Rules. So in my view the Trust should continue activities to meet those. Some of course may overlap with the GAS Board functions (though we don't yet know exactly what those will be).

The Objects in the New Model Rules from Supporters Direct which we are likely to put to the members for adoption by default say:

The Society‟s objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality or religious or moral belief.

And the subsequent Rule says:

In pursuit of these objects the Society may:
5.1 acquire an interest in or ownership of the Club;
5.2 secure democratic and accountable representation on the Club‟s Board;
5.3 take any other steps in relation to the Club which enable it to exercise the greatest possible influence in the ownership, governance and management of the Club.

So I guess a question for Jon and Andy as potential GAS Board candidates is what equivalent Objects would you draw up for the GAS Board?

It seems the next GAS Board discussion won't now happen until 17th March. This gives the Trust, and the other supporter groups, time to consult their membership for their views in the next couple of weeks.

Tim

Tim:

A few thoughts regarding Objects for The GAS Board. In no particular order:

1) To provide a conduit between the supporters and the club's owners and management, in order that supporters views may be adequately represented.

2) To act as a democratic, accountable voice for Supporters

3) To be given the access and information necessary to scrutinise and advise upon the Board's actions and decisions - in all areas of the running of the business.

4) To work with all relevant bodies to ensure that the Board are held accountable for their actions.

5) To provide as broad a representation as possible of supporters' views.

6) To facilitate a two-way flow of information between supporters and the club's owners and management.


These are just a few general thoughts, condensed into bullet points, as much for discussion as anything else, but if the GASB takes these as a starting point then I think that it covers most of the aspirations that fans have for engagement with the club, as well as covering what I saw as JB's vision for the GASB when he originally announced its formation.

Some of the bullet points may be seen as overlapping, but I'd prefer to set out such ideals individually so there's no ambiguity; it should also be noted that much of what I've set out here would seem to replicate many of the aims of the Trust. It's why I remain an advocate of the Trust putting forward a slate of members for election to the GASB - as perhaps the only way to ensure that the Trust isn't marginalised in future developments at the club.

Sorry, but 3. and 4. are never going to happen. You'd need as much access to the inner workings of the business as a Director.

And even if you got it, it took Ridsdale (poacher turned gamekeeper) months to find out what was going on.

This is an interesting development at the Leeds United Supporters' Trust.

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Sorry, but 3. and 4. are never going to happen. You'd need as much access to the inner workings of the business as a Director.

And even if you got it, it took Ridsdale (poacher turned gamekeeper) months to find out what was going on.

Bear in mind, the GASB is Brent's baby. He suggested it, he put forward the initial proposals. He's now put the fans in the driving seat as far as putting together the terms of reference and the composition and conduct of the election.

If the net result of these discussions is that one of the points proposed is exactly as I suggest - the sort of access needed to properly scrutinise Board decisions - what will Brent do then? Veto it? He wanted the GASB to act as a critical eye on the workings of the Board. He can hardly say no if that's precisely what's asked for.

Andy_Symons wrote:

chriswebbfanclub wrote:

Sorry, but 3. and 4. are never going to happen. You'd need as much access to the inner workings of the business as a Director.

And even if you got it, it took Ridsdale (poacher turned gamekeeper) months to find out what was going on.

Bear in mind, the GASB is Brent's baby. He suggested it, he put forward the initial proposals. He's now put the fans in the driving seat as far as putting together the terms of reference and the composition and conduct of the election.

If the net result of these discussions is that one of the points proposed is exactly as I suggest - the sort of access needed to properly scrutinise Board decisions - what will Brent do then? Veto it? He wanted the GASB to act as a critical eye on the workings of the Board. He can hardly say no if that's precisely what's asked for.

If he does, he'll be a bear indeed !