Brent's party on 14th

No membership. no initiation ceremony - just volunteer - can always use an extra pair of hands.

Without the white gloves on of course.

Gareth Nicholson wrote:

To provide some clarification ...

Many thanks for all that detail, Gareth: the whole issue's 100% clearer now, at least for me.



(Quote edited simply to save space and that.)

Thanks for the resumee Gareth.
A few worries there for me.
All this Chatham rules stuff is nonsese, and it is what business people have always hidden behind. How many of us talk to eachother expecting it to be a top secret conversation. We're not talking terrorist threats here, it's a football club. Ok, maybe once in the admin scenario, but not again, it breeds MIStrust, not trust. Fans should not agree to meetings where their mouths are gagged, especially a Trust, it's just a form of embedding, clothed with the respectability of "fan involvment"... it's NOT sustainable for a Trust to behave in that way, and is one of the reasons I wonder how a Trust can be useful outside of aiming to eventually OWN the club, especially considering the present owner is a reluctant one in the medium term.

Also, the lack of procedural detail of the meeting smacks of a coming whitewash and the CP top table having their way ..... it's a bit like the defence not being given the evidence by the prosecution.

All in all, a bit disappointing I would say. An intelligent fan would still be totally clueless as to what this meeting is all about. I wonder if the CPers are as clueless ? Could you eplain to me Peggy what on earth this meeting is intended to achieve, as I can't fathom it .... anything concrete and binding ?

Chatham Rules sounds like a piece of graffiti.

droly wrote:

Chatham Rules sounds like a piece of graffiti.

Sounds more like a code of conduct for fighting, yeah I reckon thats what it was.

Thanks for the post Gareth. It seems that those currently running the Trust are doing the right things.

I'm now, not sure what to think about the meeting on 14 Jan.

Will some sort of document be made available prior to the meeting so that "all" can read and discuss the information and prepare questions beforehand, or
will all those attending be going in "blind"?

Will "some" know any additional information beforehand?

What is the purpose of the meeting?

On another note, this is the third time (in a relatively short time period) where I have found information on ATD that I have not seen elsewhere.

I am also quite happy to post a reply on here. Nothing contentious in what I have written so I'm not expecting any sly digs etc.

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.

I won't be in Plymouth Mock but I'm not sure I recognise this meeting anyway.

As far as I am concerned the CPers should move over and leave it to an elected Trust and Brent should be made fully aware that the Trust are the ONLY organisation recognised by the vast majority of the fans.

With all due respect to Mr Brent, the fans will decide who represents them, not Mr Brent, Chris Webb, Ian Newell or anyone else.

[Adopts voice of Rick from the Young Ones] Right on!

The fans should decide who represents them, yes. I find it difficult to get my head round the fact that some fans don't seem to want this.

I don't think Brent wants the headline ' and problematic trust model to be the interface he deals with.
As Peggy has said, there are other modern models out there of 'involvment' with the workforce/customer base.
Not only that, he wants a compliant relationship, one that is embedded. He can't get that with an unknown quantity that could change quite quickly. I feel the 'fan involvment' thing is a cover for a bit of big society economics myself as well as a means to let certain CPers run the club under his budgetary direction...... a tame supporter base. He wanted Ridsdale to front it, but wasn't offering enough money, maybe he thinks there's the odd local or two that might apply ..... remember, apllications are invited........ gawd help us if certain people think they have the right qualifications.

Peggy wrote:

[Adopts voice of Rick from the Young Ones] Right on!

The fans should decide who represents them, yes. I find it difficult to get my head round the fact that some fans don't seem to want this.

The prolonged administration process was perfect for the local, hardcore rump of our support, to put their ever so humble but loyal faces into the frame.

Trouble is , they are not clever or sophisticated enough to make effective and inclusive leaders. That much should be obvious to anyone.

I believe the desire for thsi high profile thing is why the auctions etc have continued long after the staff have been paid.
These auctions have become Mr Newell's catchphrase, and helps the engratiating process with the owner ( look what I've brought to the table, reducing your debts), and keeping the profile high with the fanbase., certainly long enough to get a place at whatever table is being fashioned.
Cynical ? .... you bet, with Pasoti.

Peggy wrote:

[Adopts voice of Rick from the Young Ones] Right on!

The fans should decide who represents them, yes. I find it difficult to get my head round the fact that some fans don't seem to want this.

I think a lot of fans have been completely taken in by the loud shouting of Webb - evidenced by the amount of back slapping he gets when he posts anything on Pasoti - and as far as those adoring minions are concerned, no-one else is necessary.

I'm not a fan of large gatherings - they're fine if you want to pass on information to a large number of people, but to expect an open and free Q and A session is just too much, and with Webb in the chair, the discussions won't be allowed to stray into anything remotely controversial.

I hope the meeting details who the new board will be and gives an undertaking that they are in place as soon as possible, along with a CEO. The much vaunted corporate governance arrangements will, I hope also be outlined and that's the area where the Trust will need to be strong, otherwise that will be controlled by Webb and his cronies. If real representation of the fans is to happen, the Trust need to step up at this early stage and let Webb know that his control cannot be allowed to continue - it's proving to be divisive.

It may be interesting but these things, in my experience, are not what people hope, or expect them to be.

This is the big society in action, getting the public to provide or pay for services that they have a right to expect as a citizen or Argyle supporter in this case. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had there been a missive requesting that the supporters pay part of Darren Purse's wages.

I expect the trust to become some sort of community outreach body, whereas most normal clubs employ a communities officer to do that sort of thing.

The more I see of Brent, the more hands off I think he is going to be, except where the bits of the club he wants are concerned of course!

Tiberius wrote:

This is the big society in action, getting the public to provide or pay for services that they have a right to expect as a citizen or Argyle supporter in this case. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had there been a missive requesting that the supporters pay part of Darren Purse's wages.

I expect the trust to become some sort of community outreach body, whereas most normal clubs employ a communities officer to do that sort of thing.

The more I see of Brent, the more hands off I think he is going to be, except where the bits of the club he wants are concerned of course!

So if the Avivas are going to run the show at HP, mediocrity at best is on the menu for the forseeable future.

Tringreen wrote:

Tiberius wrote:

This is the big society in action, getting the public to provide or pay for services that they have a right to expect as a citizen or Argyle supporter in this case. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had there been a missive requesting that the supporters pay part of Darren Purse's wages.

I expect the trust to become some sort of community outreach body, whereas most normal clubs employ a communities officer to do that sort of thing.

The more I see of Brent, the more hands off I think he is going to be, except where the bits of the club he wants are concerned of course!

So if the Avivas are going to run the show at HP, mediocrity at best is on the menu for the forseeable future.

Did you really expect otherwise?

Tiberius wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Tiberius wrote:

This is the big society in action, getting the public to provide or pay for services that they have a right to expect as a citizen or Argyle supporter in this case. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had there been a missive requesting that the supporters pay part of Darren Purse's wages.

I expect the trust to become some sort of community outreach body, whereas most normal clubs employ a communities officer to do that sort of thing.

The more I see of Brent, the more hands off I think he is going to be, except where the bits of the club he wants are concerned of course!

So if the Avivas are going to run the show at HP, mediocrity at best is on the menu for the forseeable future.

Did you really expect otherwise?

I didn't expect the lunatics to be encouraged to take over the asylum ffs !

Tringreen wrote:

Tiberius wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Tiberius wrote:

This is the big society in action, getting the public to provide or pay for services that they have a right to expect as a citizen or Argyle supporter in this case. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had there been a missive requesting that the supporters pay part of Darren Purse's wages.

I expect the trust to become some sort of community outreach body, whereas most normal clubs employ a communities officer to do that sort of thing.

The more I see of Brent, the more hands off I think he is going to be, except where the bits of the club he wants are concerned of course!

So if the Avivas are going to run the show at HP, mediocrity at best is on the menu for the forseeable future.

Did you really expect otherwise?

I didn't expect the lunatics to be encouraged to take over the asylum ffs !

we might be surprised though, I'm by no means an authority but everything that has occured thus far points to this type of outcome.

If the CPers remain with an influence greater then the Trust the greater and longer the divide in the fan base will be, if the CPers want to have influence they should stand in an election like anyone else or be perceived as having greater concern for their own personal gratification then their interest in the club!

GOB wrote:

If the CPers remain with an influence greater then the Trust the greater and longer the divide in the fan base will be, if the CPers want to have influence they should stand in an election like anyone else or be perceived as having greater concern for their own personal gratification then their interest in the club!

Every single member of the CPers are members of the trust.

Richard Blight wrote:

GOB wrote:

If the CPers remain with an influence greater then the Trust the greater and longer the divide in the fan base will be, if the CPers want to have influence they should stand in an election like anyone else or be perceived as having greater concern for their own personal gratification then their interest in the club!

Every single member of the CPers are members of the trust.

So?

That isn't really addressing GOB's point, I don't think. I understand what you are pointing out though.

My first post here, be gentle

Just to reinforce what Gareth said, there's no secret deals going on as far as the Trust is concerned. Woz, Gareth and I have been left as custodians of the Trust until the elections complete. Our strategy is simply to leave as many doors open for the incoming board as possible.

So for the 14th, Gareth attended one meeting (Woz as Trust Chair was unavailable) and we wrote a letter to Brent to explain to him/remind him of the Trust's objectives, which are available in our Rules on the web site, section 2.

We stated that we would engage with discussions over whatever fan-based governance group he was considering creating. At the same time the Trust is large enough to consult its members and make its own statements about club matters. It can (and in my view should) be as independent as possible and a "critical friend". While things may be relatively rosy now, the Trust should be there for the long haul to hold the club to account, and challenge where necessary.

It will be up to the incoming board to consult the members and choose a strategy, be that pushing for a leading role within a fan-based oversight group set up by the club, and/or by its actions gaining respect as a strong independent voice for the supporters. Both options remain open.

With only three of us on the Trust board, we've focused on a handful of examples of the sorts of things the Trust can do in the future. The match day gazebo, the Foodbank collection, supporting the Ladies team's plight, sponsoring a match, offering help to Darlington. And we've been catching up on memberships and certificate distribution, for which Richard Blight and Sally Snow have been amazing. We'd be lost without their fantastic help.

I'd encourage everyone to come along on the 14th and have their say.

Richard Blight wrote:

GOB wrote:

If the CPers remain with an influence greater then the Trust the greater and longer the divide in the fan base will be, if the CPers want to have influence they should stand in an election like anyone else or be perceived as having greater concern for their own personal gratification then their interest in the club!

Every single member of the CPers are members of the trust.

Yes, I assumed they all would be Richard, my point was that it's a bit like saying "I'm a member of the Labour Party but I'm standing for the Conservatives".

Why do they want an interest, do they not trust the Trust to represent the fans, what's their objective?

Tim Chown wrote:

My first post here, be gentle

Just to reinforce what Gareth said, there's no secret deals going on as far as the Trust is concerned. Woz, Gareth and I have been left as custodians of the Trust until the elections complete. Our strategy is simply to leave as many doors open for the incoming board as possible.

So for the 14th, Gareth attended one meeting (Woz as Trust Chair was unavailable) and we wrote a letter to Brent to explain to him/remind him of the Trust's objectives, which are available in our Rules on the web site, section 2.

We stated that we would engage with discussions over whatever fan-based governance group he was considering creating. At the same time the Trust is large enough to consult its members and make its own statements about club matters. It can (and in my view should) be as independent as possible and a "critical friend". While things may be relatively rosy now, the Trust should be there for the long haul to hold the club to account, and challenge where necessary.

It will be up to the incoming board to consult the members and choose a strategy, be that pushing for a leading role within a fan-based oversight group set up by the club, and/or by its actions gaining respect as a strong independent voice for the supporters. Both options remain open.

With only three of us on the Trust board, we've focused on a handful of examples of the sorts of things the Trust can do in the future. The match day gazebo, the Foodbank collection, supporting the Ladies team's plight, sponsoring a match, offering help to Darlington. And we've been catching up on memberships and certificate distribution, for which Richard Blight and Sally Snow have been amazing. We'd be lost without their fantastic help.

I'd encourage everyone to come along on the 14th and have their say.

Welcome to ATD Tim, we're really not as "bad" as we've been portrayed, you'll see

GOB wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

GOB wrote:

If the CPers remain with an influence greater then the Trust the greater and longer the divide in the fan base will be, if the CPers want to have influence they should stand in an election like anyone else or be perceived as having greater concern for their own personal gratification then their interest in the club!

Every single member of the CPers are members of the trust.

Yes, I assumed they all would be Richard, my point was that it's a bit like saying "I'm a member of the Labour Party but I'm standing for the Conservatives"

I thought this would be on Mr Web next agenda


TGWU will not cross the line