Like leigh rapson, posty or el prez, Jock?

Irrespective of whether the first action of the new PASB should be to require a new election or questions over the legitimacy of the electoral process, it seems to me that the club has gone ahead with the election with, as far as I am aware, no indication anywhere of their reasoning for continuing with the process. This should be enough to put a huge question mark over their attitude to democracy. It also puts a huge question mark over the independence of the PASB from the club. If the club can control the process to this degree it doesn't augur well for the future.

We actually don't know if the President has been complaining to Mr Brent behind the scenes. He may well have done. However, if I remember rightly, his brief was to be the People's President NOT a mouthpiece for the club. In my view, he should be making public these discussions if they are taking place. If he & Mr Brent have allowed their friendship to muddy these waters then the role of President has become a total waste of time and he might as well be put on a salary by the club. Going native is difficult to avoid in these situations but, on the surface, it does appear that is what Chris Webb has slipped into.

At the last Trust organised meeting James Brent & Peter Jones could not have made it more clear that they have no problem whatsoever working with the Trust, they would have no problem if the PASB were made up of all Trust members and would have no problem if the two bodies were to amalgamate in the future. As far as I am aware most of the new PASB are made up of Trust members. I suggest that the Trust should use that majority to make all future negotiations - within the PASB and between the PASB & the club - open to scrutiny.

The trouble is there remain huge areas that have little or no clarity. Such questions as the ongoing financing of the work of the PASB, the mechanics of interaction between these two bodies, the confidentiality agreements (if any), the access to what financial or other information, the facilities on offer from the club (for example the logistics of meeting places or secretarial support), etc all need clarifying. If all of these depend on the good will of the club then if the PASB at some point find themselves in opposition to the club on any significant issue will that good will simply be removed? Will the PASB and its role be set up on a legal basis? This might become important if and when the ownership of the club changes hands. The Trust and similar minded people on the PASB must take advantage of their majority role to ensure these questions and others are addressed as soon as possible.

Two points here.

1..... The position of President is NOT to represent the fans. It has always been an ambassador for the club itself. So I think we can safely assume that's EXACTLY what Mr Webb will do. What irritates is that in his role, he has strayed into other areas and also wishes to appear to be on the side of the fans as well. The two are not compatable. One thing though ... I'm sure glad he's representing the club, rather than representing me... I don't think I could bear the embarrassment.

2....... regardless of the obvious disaster this Gas thing has been, it exists, first and foremost, to make sure James Brent doesn't over-commit the club. So we do actually have a football first here, sadly an unwanted first. It's a bit like a Trade Union trying to stop some employer who is desperate to pay his staff more money, telling him he is being irresponsible.. what a joke....this new 'owner' sounds a classic true blue... the guffaws at the irony will be loud and long. When investment is not forthcoming, we will have the spectacle of fans saying it's a good thing... this latest property developer must think football fans are dumb .... maybe he's right.

I have faith in trust to do what needs to be done.

The PASB is only a short term thing, as is Chris Webb's involvement with Argyle. However, there appear some decent people "elected" to the PASB and we need to work with those that have Argyle's best interests at heart and can add value. Don't need to name names, it is clear to all who are good for the Club and the fans.

Webb is seen by the more educated within the Club (officialls and players)as an inarticulate buffoon and Newell as an Ernst Rohm character (a thug, who cannot speak or dress properly, doing his masters bidding believing whoeheartedly that the end justifies the means). Believe me, they are not a major problem and are watched to ensure they do not bring The Club and Argyle name into disrepute. We cannot permit bad relations with other professional football Clubs and comments made on twitter and various other Clubs Fans forums have been brought to the attention of those that matter.

All will become clear, but things won't change immediately. Won't be posting for a while.

ATID

You sound as though you are an insider .....

John Lloyd has made a really interesting comment in the other place>

http://www.pasoti.co.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=71561

Essentially, he's saying not to confuse the electoral process with the people who have filled the posts. They've been elected. Let's get on & make it work.

I'd mostly agree with that. The only thing I'd add is to say that at some point a line has to be drawn. Let's hope the PASB has the balls to do that where necessary. Let's hope the Trust will be there as well.

The PASB has no credibility to do that Knecht. The only way to save it is to come out admit the faults open the voting to all supporters who want to vote but mainly and before and mostly call for re elections asap.

If we believe John we would have to forget all the flaws this election has had which are far too many to be mishaps and accept it.

Wont happen i'm afraid this will be a millstone around their necks till they deal with it.

The trouble is that if another election were to be called, I suspect we'd have similar candidates and maybe the same ones elected. Possibly there'd be one exception!

I'm not completely sold on John Lloyd's view but it certainly has its plus points.

But I'd repeat the comments I made above: "The trouble is there remain huge areas that have little or no clarity. Such questions as the ongoing financing of the work of the PASB, the mechanics of interaction between these two bodies, the confidentiality agreements (if any), the access to what financial or other information, the facilities on offer from the club (for example the logistics of meeting places or secretarial support), etc all need clarifying. If all of these depend on the good will of the club then if the PASB at some point find themselves in opposition to the club on any significant issue will that good will simply be removed? Will the PASB and its role be set up on a legal basis? This might become important if and when the ownership of the club changes hands. The Trust and similar minded people on the PASB must take advantage of their majority role to ensure these questions and others are addressed as soon as possible." To which I'd add, if the club funded the election, would they be prepared to fund another?

If they weren't I guess that leaves as an option for the PASB to vote to dissolve themselves and pass responsibility to the legitimately elected body, The Trust. There are certainly attractions in that!

Your last paragraph Knecht is what should have been the case from the word go!

you never know Jock, he seems that desperate for a slice of the action it wouldn't surprise me if he did....as long as he had a position with the Trust somewhere!

Penz,

As ever your comments are thought-provoking.

In particular, the bit about ensuring the club doesn't over-commit in the future could of course be a double edged sword. Yet if it takes the right approach, the PASB could also look up as well as down, so to speak.

I think Ive typed this before somewhere, but the sort of thing that I've got in mind is by comparing spend & investment with that of similar clubs (a. If there are such things & b. if the details are available).

The previous Government bought in a comparison process for 'similar' police forces & in my eyes, was one of the very few components of their performance regime that gave any credible data.


Knecht,

I've been putting together something of a discussion document for when I first meet my PASB colleagues - I'll happily plagiarise some of your points without shame, if that's ok with you....

The real problem I have is that there are now 3 ( YES, THREE ) levels of fan involvment.
We have the Fans Trust, we have the PASB, and we have the 'first in football' Jones, Webb, Newell and GT axis. The latter have all been invited in ahead of any representative lobbiesbo by the owner.
No person connected to the 'axis' stood for election, which is quite incredible, and from that, one can only surmise what the score is. It's just so obvious. The likes of Webb and Jones will have far more influence in running the club than any 'fans' board'. It's window dressing, beaurocracy and procedure designed for a particular purpose that makes me laugh.

You couldn't get much further from a democratically elected fans representation if you tried really.