Brent's party on 14th

Quite right Peggy and exactly why there should only ever be one voice and that voice should always be a voice that has a mandate!

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

1. Which bit of 'equivalent' don't you understand?

2. Maybe because a small group of good people have been left in the lurch with too much to do?

3. If he was intending to do things differently, he'd have waited til after the results of the Trust elections.

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

1. Did you ever bring up the Trust being recognised when you it's leader?

2. Have they? How do you know? I'm a Trust member and know nothing of that?

3. How do you know agenda is not finalised? Do you what is already on the agenda?

Dougie wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

1. Did you ever bring up the Trust being recognised when you it's leader?

2. Have they? How do you know? I'm a Trust member and know nothing of that?

3. How do you know agenda is not finalised? Do you what is already on the agenda?

Because there is a select group of people hanging out of each other backsides whispering sweet nothings to each other!!!

Starting to look like a Masonic Group, not a supporters group

Watch out anyone thinking Brent should of waited until after Trust election is being Wrathallian i.e. naive and arrogant according to, well, you know who. I would say it would have been a boon to the Trust and probably sensible. I don't see the rush in getting this off the ground. I would even venture that once the board the team and which league we are in next season have been sorted would be the moment.

Dougie wrote:

Watch out anyone thinking Brent should of waited until after Trust election is being Wrathallian i.e. naive and arrogant according to, well, you know who. I would say it would have been a boon to the Trust and probably sensible. I don't see the rush in getting this off the ground. I would even venture that once the board the team and which league we are in next season have been sorted would be the moment.

I could have sworn that that person was very anti the Trust at the beginning: now he seems to want to be their spokesperson.

Interesting though that somebody who's still working his socks off for the Trust shares the view that the meeting could have waited. I speak of course of our very own all-purpose thread title Richard Blight.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I think Brent has to distance himself from the CPers. That horse has run its course. The trust should be at the top table and everyone else should come under their umbrella.

there's not a bat's chance in hell of that happening at this football club.
Most of this set up was encouraged by Peter Ridsdale. His views on Supporters' trusts are fairly clear.

Unfortunately, tamed and dined will be the way adopted here.... it is owned by an ex Citibank boy for goodnes sake.... he's hardly Arfur Scargill is he or a fan of mutual control.

Dougie wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

1. Did you ever bring up the Trust being recognised when you it's leader?

2. Have they? How do you know? I'm a Trust member and know nothing of that?

3. How do you know agenda is not finalised? Do you what is already on the agenda?

1. No I was too busy trying to help save the Club.

2. Yes.....because I was there and I have spoken to Wozzer and Gareth as explained in other posts.......you'll have to ask the Trust representatives why you don't know. It was clear and publicised that they were attending though.

3. Because I spoke to James Brent on Saturday about it and no I do not know the agenda yet.

dane_b wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

1. Did you ever bring up the Trust being recognised when you it's leader?

2. Have they? How do you know? I'm a Trust member and know nothing of that?

3. How do you know agenda is not finalised? Do you what is already on the agenda?

Because there is a select group of people hanging out of each other backsides whispering sweet nothings to each other!!!

Starting to look like a Masonic Group, not a supporters group

You coming to the meeting Dane? Free entry. I know you like that.

whats your issue with free tickets chris ? Thats not the first time you have made a little remark.

Im very lucky to have certain avenues from within the club which enables me ( From time to time ) to get hold of a hospitality ticket.

clearly unlike you I care more about my own bank account than i do for Plymouth Argyles, so if and when the opportunity is there i take a hospitality, like 100's of others in every ground around the country.

Say all you want, but i openly admit i dont have the same obsession for the club as you do, i go to games support the team. But i see it as entertainment... not part of my life... if i could get a free ticket for the cinema i would also take it but i cant so i have to pay.

For the record i paid my way yesterday on the gate... hope this meets with your approval Mr president... who no matter what you have done for the club has no right to judge me in any way what so ever. so for that ... take a run and jump.


As for attending your masonic meetings, ill leave the naked, apron wearing, funny hand shake training to you and who ever else you have decided to publicly back. As president you really should have kept a low profile, but it seems you are hell bent on encouraging civil war.

disappointing really as i was in the cherry tree the night of our cricket presentation when you were in there, and i had nothing but good to say about you to Wozzer, i thought the way you fought for the clubs survival was inspirational. But the way your conducting yourself since becoming president is just all wrong, Trust someone who knows, take a back seat and don't make sweeping statements in the public eye... they will stick and your reputation will be hard to rescue.

But hey ... who am i .... im just a present who takes advantage of having a few contacts at the club ......

Chris Webb wrote:

Dougie wrote:

Chris Webb wrote:

Peggy wrote:

No it isn't. As I've stated a number of times before, the meeting is the equivalent of an employer recognising an independent trade union (the Trust), but then also setting up some kind of internal staff committee (whatever's going to be proposed next week) so as to play the two off each other.

Peggy, not for the first time, well wide of the mark.

1. When did the Club, 'recognise' the Trust?

2. The Trust have been FULLY involved in the talks ahead of the meeting on the 14th and have raised no issues.

3. How do you know what is going to be proposed two weeks ahead of the meeting when James Brent hasn't even finalised the agenda himself?

Chris

1. Did you ever bring up the Trust being recognised when you it's leader?

2. Have they? How do you know? I'm a Trust member and know nothing of that?

3. How do you know agenda is not finalised? Do you what is already on the agenda?

1. No I was too busy trying to help save the Club.

2. Yes.....because I was there and I have spoken to Wozzer and Gareth as explained in other posts.......you'll have to ask the Trust representatives why you don't know. It was clear and publicised that they were attending though.

3. Because I spoke to James Brent on Saturday about it and no I do not know the agenda yet.

1. I knew you would say that

2. Other posts on here? I'll look for them. And I'll follow up with Gareth etc or perhaps Wozzer can post on here. Or perhaps you can post on here as the President how the discussions went.

3. You have me at a disadvantage there it's a long time since me and James chatted. Chris - "How the agenda coming along for the 14th James" James - "It's not finalised yet Chris" Thrilling repartee

Chemical Ali wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Contingency Plan committee will act as the supporters' representatives.

I think you will discover that to be a totally inaccurate statement.

Graham Clark wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Contingency Plan committee will act as the supporters' representatives.

I think you will discover that to be a totally inaccurate statement.

I'm sure I've seen one CPer say it floats his boat if the group was a checks and balance type thing I'll try to find the quote.

Quote :

I'd stand for election for the Supervisory Board Woz, but I'd never stand for the Trust.

I would imagine, others could feel the same way as well.

Graham Clark wrote:

Chemical Ali wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Contingency Plan committee will act as the supporters' representatives.

I think you will discover that to be a totally inaccurate statement.

Come on Graham, it was just something that wouldn't surprise Ali, not a statement.
I would also be surprised when all is done and dusted, if any fan 'involvment' doesn't include a big proportion of that contingency group. In fact I would be astonished if it didn't include any of them.

Important thread.

Reckon it'll be a genuine, open meeting for Brent to say hello and get a genuine slice of early consensus from the fanbase? or will it be a case of turning up only to see Newell and Webb already sat at the top table, smoking PAFC cigars and wearing Argyle ties, choosing their mates as the ones to ask the questions, and an eventual proclaimation of the GTs as the saviours...

Anyone on here going....Pete? GOB? I assume no-one non-local would bother.

Much as I'd like to think not, it's probably going to be more like your second scenario, Mock.

I could go, but what with a rarely-seen friend expected that weekend and my doubts over what's likely to come out of it (plus my desire not to be in the same room as certain individuals) I doubt if I will.

I can't go. Its my birthday and the wife won't be too happy if I pop down to Plymouth for the day.

Does this mean that I am no longer allowed an opinion on Argyle? I get the impression that if you use ATD you have to stand for the Trust or ask questions at the meeting to be allowed a voice.

I assume Chris Webb will be moderating the questions and if he follows previous form it will be restricted to one question (due to the number of people wanting to ask about the buses, pasties etc.) As any viewer of PMQ's knows, you need the first question to set it up and a follow up to knock the ball into the net.

I fear the top table will show how things will end up, although this thread and Peter's on Pasoti may give rise to a few PM's and a bit of native cunning being deployed for some who are already established to keep a low profile.

Funnily enough I had a brief PM exchange with Mark Russell back in April when I said the GT's were not for me as it all seemed a bit "Masonic". I still don't know who actually qualifies as a GT, rather than a supporter (or customer) of them. I got the impression a while back that IJN had moved from the second category to the first but who knows. I would really like them to see a list of actual Taveners (sorry Penz) on their website, not just subscribing members, to allow me to take a more informed view of their structure and motives. I doubt they would tell us if Tony Wrathall was in the brotherhood though.

I hope Woz, Gareth and co can reinvigorate the Trust, it should be the future as originally planned. The first year has left me greatly disillusioned as it has been used and abused much to it's detriment, in my view.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Important thread.

Reckon it'll be a genuine, open meeting for Brent to say hello and get a genuine slice of early consensus from the fanbase? or will it be a case of turning up only to see Newell and Webb already sat at the top table, smoking PAFC cigars and wearing Argyle ties, choosing their mates as the ones to ask the questions, and an eventual proclaimation of the GTs as the saviours...

Anyone on here going....Pete? GOB? I assume no-one non-local would bother.

Not I, have difficulty getting about these days.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I can't go. Its my birthday and the wife won't be too happy if I pop down to Plymouth for the day.

Does this mean that I am no longer allowed an opinion on Argyle? I get the impression that if you use ATD you have to stand for the Trust or ask questions at the meeting to be allowed a voice.

Frank,

your views and everybody else's are being heard by several Trust members. The same as they are on Pasoti, in Fansfests,in the Far Post club in and around the ground or just down the pub.

There's the good,bad and ugly on here. Some funny stuff too! In amongst the bad and ugly there is some really interesting stuff. This site has come on in just the short time I've been on here.

Charlie Wood wrote:

I assume Chris Webb will be moderating the questions and if he follows previous form it will be restricted to one question (due to the number of people wanting to ask about the buses, pasties etc.) As any viewer of PMQ's knows, you need the first question to set it up and a follow up to knock the ball into the net.

I fear the top table will show how things will end up, although this thread and Peter's on Pasoti may give rise to a few PM's and a bit of native cunning being deployed for some who are already established to keep a low profile.

Funnily enough I had a brief PM exchange with Mark Russell back in April when I said the GT's were not for me as it all seemed a bit "Masonic". I still don't know who actually qualifies as a GT, rather than a supporter (or customer) of them. I got the impression a while back that IJN had moved from the second category to the first but who knows. I would really like them to see a list of actual Taveners (sorry Penz) on their website, not just subscribing members, to allow me to take a more informed view of their structure and motives. I doubt they would tell us if Tony Wrathall was in the brotherhood though.

I hope Woz, Gareth and co can reinvigorate the Trust, it should be the future as originally planned. The first year has left me greatly disillusioned as it has been used and abused much to it's detriment, in my view.

I'm a CPr, I'm a GT, I am a Trust member. The only thing that 'qualifies' me as any of them is that I wanted to get off my arse and do whatever I could to help the football club. No other qualification necessary.

I play for the gt's cricket club. Does that count. Lol

To provide some clarification on the Trust's position on firstly the meeting on the 14th and secondly our involvement in 'talks' around models of fan engagement.

As far as I am aware, the Trust has been involved in one meeting to discuss, among other things, engagement between the club and fans. That was a meeting held in Exeter last November attended by individuals who effectively comprised the CP. I attended that meeting on behalf of the Trust.

It's important to note that the meeting was held under Chatham House rules. Brent asked that of us and we all agreed to it (I am pleased that the Trust has kept to this agreement while recognising that members have a right to be informed - rocks and hard places and all that and the meeting was reported in minutes of our Nov meeting). I still agree with that now: Brent needed space and time to come up with his own model which would hopefully be influenced by fans but one to which we (Trust, individuals, ST holders, casual fans, the disaffected thousands etc etc - let's use Argyle fans as a convenient shorthand, shall we?) could also respond during or after the 14 Jan meeting.

After that meeting the Trust wrote to Mr Brent to outline the Trust's role, its short term strategy, and to set out that medium to long term strategy must and can only be set by a fully elected board. We did however set out some basic principles for engagement that focused on the legitimacy of any 'representative' group put together and the level at the club with which that group engages. We asked for permission to put that letter and any response we received into the public domain by sharing it with Trust members. Mr Brent outlined by way of reply that he would rather not (and for avoidance of all doubt and because I can't remember the actual words I paraphrase here) have the material out in the open until he had thought more about how engagement might work on a theoretical and practical level.

It's important to note that as far as I was concerned the meeting in November was almost literally back of a fag packet stuff. Mr Brent came with a few fairly vague ideas and other ideas were floated around the table. I am not aware that the Trust has been formally involved in discussions since then, nor am I aware of what talks have occured between Mr Brent and others on the subject.

Speaking on a purely personal basis, it will be interesting to see what develops around the 14 Jan meeting. I think sensible debate would be encouraged if a set of proposals could be published in advance of the meeting so that we (again, Argyle fans 'we') could read and digest (and so the Trust can gauge the views of its membership by whom the board are guided) rather than in a format where out of necessity detail (where they tell me the devil lies) is often omitted.

I don't yet know what the format for the meeting is: as Chris hints above the agenda does not yet seem to be finalised. I hope and expect though that the meeting on the 14th isn't there just to see Brent's preferred model through on the nod. If it is the start of a short listening exercise to which people can respond in writing or by speaking up at the meeting, I think that would work best and would allow the Trust to get feedback from its 1400+ members before making a formal response which we will of course publish on our website. That response could endorse any model proposed, could recommend minor or major changes or could set out an alternate model or see the Trust standing outside any model if we do not consider it fit for purpose. I'm not going to pre-empt that until we see not just the proposal but the detail.

Apologies for the long post but I hope that provides some clarification. Please feel free to ask Woz, Tim or me any questions or let us know your views.

G

Damon.Lenszner wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

I assume Chris Webb will be moderating the questions and if he follows previous form it will be restricted to one question (due to the number of people wanting to ask about the buses, pasties etc.) As any viewer of PMQ's knows, you need the first question to set it up and a follow up to knock the ball into the net.

I fear the top table will show how things will end up, although this thread and Peter's on Pasoti may give rise to a few PM's and a bit of native cunning being deployed for some who are already established to keep a low profile.

Funnily enough I had a brief PM exchange with Mark Russell back in April when I said the GT's were not for me as it all seemed a bit "Masonic". I still don't know who actually qualifies as a GT, rather than a supporter (or customer) of them. I got the impression a while back that IJN had moved from the second category to the first but who knows. I would really like them to see a list of actual Taveners (sorry Penz) on their website, not just subscribing members, to allow me to take a more informed view of their structure and motives. I doubt they would tell us if Tony Wrathall was in the brotherhood though.

I hope Woz, Gareth and co can reinvigorate the Trust, it should be the future as originally planned. The first year has left me greatly disillusioned as it has been used and abused much to it's detriment, in my view.

I'm a CPr, I'm a GT, I am a Trust member. The only thing that 'qualifies' me as any of them is that I wanted to get off my arse and do whatever I could to help the football club. No other qualification necessary.

So how does one go about becoming a Green Taverner? And what actually constitutes being a Green Taverner?