The First Meeting to Discuss The GAS Board

I don't know what Brent's views are, Tring. Certainly the initial list that Brent gave at the Guildhall meeting is being looked at, and changed if necessary. One example - Brent said that the Board would consist of 7 members, 3 appointed (Trust, GT's, Supporters groups) and 4 elected individuals. My best guess at this stage is that there will be more than 7 people on the GAS Board.

I reckon just about everything's up for grabs as far as the terms of reference is concerned, but there are, as I've said, more meetings to be had before anything concrete is put forward.

'Sniping' is the word of choice. 'Trolling' is another.



I distinctly remember Clark resigning from the Trust board in the 'heat' of the battle, anyway?



Not that it matters, if he has anything useful to add it should be listened to. We weren't all at Scarborough '99, etc.

Why was Graham Clark in attendance?

According to him he's happy to be nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst.

For him to be present and basically insult somebody who was present, what the fk is going on?

Tringreen wrote:

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

Andy, What I was actually saying was that for the GASB to be inclusive it would have to include those with an alternative view. I cannot believe you have so misreprented what I was saying. That was the context for what I said. I was actually promoting the fact that alternative viewpoints should be accommodated. Perhaps next time you should listen more carefully.

Graham Clark wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

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

Andy, What I was actually saying was that for the GASB to be inclusive it would have to include those with an alternative view. I cannot believe you have so misreprented what I was saying. That was the context for what I said. I was actually promoting the fact that alternative viewpoints should be accommodated. Perhaps next time you should listen more carefully.

Why were you there?

Apparently, anyone who wanted to go could have gone - at least by arrangement beforehand. I understand that next time it will be held in a larger room.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Why was Graham Clark in attendance?

According to him he's happy to be nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst.

For him to be present and basically insult somebody who was present, what the fk is going on?

That is absolutely correct. The invitation was extended to those with experience of corporate governance which I have. I stressed the importance of achieving the widest constituency and including those with a possible alternative view. Hence my reference to Andy which he has fundamentally misrepresented. Perhaps those present should listen more carefully.

Graham Clark wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Why was Graham Clark in attendance?

According to him he's happy to be nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst.

For him to be present and basically insult somebody who was present, what the fk is going on?

That is absolutely correct. The invitation was extended to those with experience of corporate governance which I have. I stressed the importance of achieving the widest constituency and including those with a possible alternative view. Hence my reference to Andy which he has fundamentally misrepresented. Perhaps those present should listen more carefully.

Again, why were you there? You have no interest apparently.

Just give me a fair football team to support...not a bunch of sold/souled out muppets.

I have a horrible feeling things will turn out nasty in the near future. Not because we genuine posters on ATD are thugs...

Graham Clark wrote:

The invitation was extended to those with experience of corporate governance...

It was? By who? Was that a general call for help, or was it a 'special' invitation offered to you?

Graham Clark wrote:

Andy, What I was actually saying was that for the GASB to be inclusive it would have to include those with an alternative view. I cannot believe you have so misreprented what I was saying. That was the context for what I said. I was actually promoting the fact that alternative viewpoints should be accommodated. Perhaps next time you should listen more carefully.

So what did you 'actually' say then Graham?

How did, "sat on the sidelines, sniping" get misrepresented?

Graham Clark wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Why was Graham Clark in attendance?

According to him he's happy to be nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst.

For him to be present and basically insult somebody who was present, what the fk is going on?

That is absolutely correct. The invitation was extended to those with experience of corporate governance which I have. I stressed the importance of achieving the widest constituency and including those with a possible alternative view. Hence my reference to Andy which he has fundamentally misrepresented. Perhaps those present should listen more carefully.

Apologies for my earlier rant, sorry.

I think I understand why you joined the "corporate governance" side of things.

Why is it so necessary to bring up the 'what did you do in the war' references?

You started out as a fan in the Lyndhurst, a critical fan at that. What gives you the right to abuse fans reps at important meetings?

Just curious.

Graham Clark wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

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

Andy, What I was actually saying was that for the GASB to be inclusive it would have to include those with an alternative view. I cannot believe you have so misreprented what I was saying. That was the context for what I said. I was actually promoting the fact that alternative viewpoints should be accommodated. Perhaps next time you should listen more carefully.

Graham - you addressed the remark specifically to me, by name. The phrase you used was 'sniping from the sidelines.' Would you like to hear it again? I have it on my dictaphone.

Rickler wrote:

Graham Clark wrote:

The invitation was extended to those with experience of corporate governance...

It was? By who? Was that a general call for help, or was it a 'special' invitation offered to you?
...........

The invitation was an open one to anyone. It was repeated to me yesterday. The invitation also included specific reference to people with the relevant experience. At the risk of opening another can of worms - it was posted on pasoti.

Andy & Graham Clark clearly have a disagreement to sort out. Why does that need the boys to jump into the fray?

Peggy had talked of standing. She clearly didn't get there yesterday. That would deal with the issue of no female representation (if not the age ).

Graham Clark wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Why was Graham Clark in attendance?

According to him he's happy to be nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst.

For him to be present and basically insult somebody who was present, what the fk is going on?

That is absolutely correct. The invitation was extended to those with experience of corporate governance which I have. I stressed the importance of achieving the widest constituency and including those with a possible alternative view. Hence my reference to Andy which he has fundamentally misrepresented. Perhaps those present should listen more carefully.

Sounds like someone thinks the plebs can't be trusted to do anything without "guidance" from the self proclaimed great & good.

How condescending!

And sure to make most people think twice before joining in.

GC's "experience of corporate governance" has I think been utilised on the Trust and the CP group in the past-what glowing references.

Having just read the above and some of my recent postings on the other site (under different user name) I'm beginning to wonder if I am just a troll/miserable old git?

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

I believe you're a good man Andy, more power to you.

Personally I think Graham showed his true colours. He totally missed his own irony, such a shame from somebody whom was at one time a respected poster and man. I hope he never gets a position where he can influence decisions concerning our club.

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

I don't think I commented.

If I were to comment, it would be that a public put-down ought to be worthy of a public apology.

Oh well, never mind.

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

And so it begins....

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

Really?

As far as I'm aware Andy done his bit until personal problems took control, nobody deserves to be slated for that!

For Graham, somebody who is nothing more than a season ticket holder in the Lyndhurst, somebody who stood down from the Trust chair without explanation, somebody who claims he has no interest in holding any future position, to snipe at a meaningful meeting...

Greenman wrote:

Andy_Symons wrote:

Graham has sent me a private message on here in which he apologised for the way in which he worded the point he was trying to make at the meeting yesterday. It's an apology I'm happy to accept; I trust that others who have commented on this will now let the matter rest.

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

Please feel free to highlight any posts of mine that you believe support this view.

It is just that, gas. Nothing else.

Why did you step down from the Trust Chair Graham?

While you're at it, can you please attempt to explain why JBE resigned from his position within the Trust?

Thank you.

You are right Czarcasm....

Greenman wrote:

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

And if that comment isn't a snipe from the sidelines without any substance, I don't know what is?

Rickler wrote:

You are right Czarcasm....

Greenman wrote:

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

And if that comment isn't a snipe from the sidelines without any substance, I don't know what is?

Ah but it depends who's doing the sniping from the sidelines Rickler, the rules only apply one way. Graham Clark can publicly insult Andy at an important meeting, and the next day send a private apology once the damage has already been done. And it looks like Graham doesn't feel like answering the points other have raised today, despite being logged in, as he prefers to snipe from the sidelines.

Just like Greenman also knows for sure that anyone who asks the relevant questions in the correct manner WILL be rewarded, until pressed when he changes his mind to those who ask for answers in the correct manner will receive an answer, in his opinion. Because nobody has ever tried asking questions of Brent or Chris Webb in a "correct manner"! We gang up, don't go to games and demand answers to outrageous questions.

Not Praaaaaaaper faaaans like him obviously.

Or, we don't feel like accepting the spoon fed, sugar coated shit lots of others do whilst tugging our forelocks and being grateful that somebody as esteemed as Chris Webb has deemed us worthy of being spoken to.

Santabarbara wrote:

What on earth is the Gas board supposed to be ??

Who came up with name or is it the initials of somebody ??

Green Army Supporters Board, I think.

Greenjock wrote:

Rickler wrote:

You are right Czarcasm....

Greenman wrote:

That's a pity because i thought Graham Clark called it right. i've been reading this website for a while and you do like to snipe and stir with no substance.

And if that comment isn't a snipe from the sidelines without any substance, I don't know what is?

Ah but it depends who's doing the sniping from the sidelines Rickler, the rules only apply one way. Graham Clark can publicly insult Andy at an important meeting, and the next day send a private apology once the damage has already been done. And it looks like Graham doesn't feel like answering the points other have raised today, despite being logged in, as he prefers to snipe from the sidelines.

Just like Greenman also knows for sure that anyone who asks the relevant questions in the correct manner WILL be rewarded, until pressed when he changes his mind to those who ask for answers in the correct manner will receive an answer, in his opinion. Because nobody has ever tried asking questions of Brent or Chris Webb in a "correct manner"! We gang up, don't go to games and demand answers to outrageous questions.

Not Praaaaaaaper faaaans like him obviously.

Or, we don't feel like accepting the spoon fed, sugar coated shit lots of others do whilst tugging our forelocks and being grateful that somebody as esteemed as Chris Webb has deemed us worthy of being spoken to.

Graham Clark was somebody who spoke a whole lot of sense at one time. I never had any problem with him being Trust Chair. He stepped down for untold reasons and along came Chris Webb. Sold out? Souled out?