so whos buying some (hallets chat)

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

no it doesnt your right,

 but im interested to know can a fan/individual buy out other fans who owned shares?

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

Once again...  As usual you are wrong about "Everyone else's shares".  If you actually  did own all of them (the so called 25%), you would only need 33.33% (plus a single share) of Simon Hallett's tally to gain control.

...and the bit about not paying a dividend if the "owner" decides to pay himself a salary is just utter bullshit.  Horrible information. I'm betting you've never directly held a "share" of anything in your entire life.

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

Once again...  As usual you are wrong about "Everyone else's shares".  If you actually  did own all of them (the so called 25%), you would only need 33.33% (plus a single share) of Simon Hallett's tally to gain control.

...and the bit about not paying a dividend if the "owner" decides to pay himself a salary is just utter bullshit.  Horrible information.  I'm betting you've never directly held a "share" of anything in your entire life.

How would you take control of Halletts 70 odd % if you owned 33.3%? As to Groveys point you would get a dividend if the club made a profit.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

Once again...  As usual you are wrong about "Everyone else's shares".  If you actually  did own all of them (the so called 25%), you would only need 33.33% (plus a single share) of Simon Hallett's tally to gain control.

...and the bit about not paying a dividend if the "owner" decides to pay himself a salary is just utter bullshit.  Horrible information.  I'm betting you've never directly held a "share" of anything in your entire life.

How would you take control of Halletts 70 odd % if you owned 33.3%? As to Groveys point you would get a dividend if the club made a profit.

If you read Ricklers post properly what he’s wrote is correct, assume SH owned 75% and I owned 25%, I then buy a third of SH’s holding which is 25% plus 1 share, I now own 50% plus one so I become the larger shareholder

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

Once again...  As usual you are wrong about "Everyone else's shares".  If you actually  did own all of them (the so called 25%), you would only need 33.33% (plus a single share) of Simon Hallett's tally to gain control.

...and the bit about not paying a dividend if the "owner" decides to pay himself a salary is just utter bullshit.  Horrible information.  I'm betting you've never directly held a "share" of anything in your entire life.

How would you take control of Halletts 70 odd % if you owned 33.3%? As to Groveys point you would get a dividend if the club made a profit.

If you read Ricklers post properly what he’s wrote is correct, assume SH owned 75% and I owned 25%, I then buy a third of SH’s holding which is 25% plus 1 share, I now own 50% plus one so I become the larger shareholder

Correct maths but totally irrelevant SH is only selling around twenty per cent, just the normall haste to call someone out for being stupid and deviating from the thread.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

Once again...  As usual you are wrong about "Everyone else's shares".  If you actually  did own all of them (the so called 25%), you would only need 33.33% (plus a single share) of Simon Hallett's tally to gain control.

...and the bit about not paying a dividend if the "owner" decides to pay himself a salary is just utter bullshit.  Horrible information.  I'm betting you've never directly held a "share" of anything in your entire life.

How would you take control of Halletts 70 odd % if you owned 33.3%? As to Groveys point you would get a dividend if the club made a profit.

If you read Ricklers post properly what he’s wrote is correct, assume SH owned 75% and I owned 25%, I then buy a third of SH’s holding which is 25% plus 1 share, I now own 50% plus one so I become the larger shareholder

Correct maths but totally irrelevant SH is only selling around twenty per cent, just the normall haste to call someone out for being stupid and deviating from the thread.

I’m not calling you stupid and I kind of understand the likelihood of how the shares could be issued, I was just responding to your last paragraph

I think Rickler may have been referring to rules that say anyone owning 25% +1 shares in a company can make a formal takeover bid.

In these circumstances SH would still own the shares (whether 25% or 75% is irrelevant) that a buyer would need to buy in order to take over the business/Club. So SH still has the final say and can name his price if he so wishes.

I know that in the past, the Club board members have owned the Club via a Holding Company that owned football Club (bear with me) If that is the current set up, owning shares in the football Club (rather than the Holding Co.) is just for the kudos-he who controls the Holding Co. controls the football Club.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Graiser wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Tgwu wrote:

Unless they print more shares as Hallett owns 99.9%, then the 25% must come from Hallett investment  The money rise would go to Hallett surely.

What 25%?  What is the relevance of the figure?

SH mentions he’ll own more than 75% so some posters have assumed there’ll be 25% on sale, which I don’t think will be the case, I’m assuming it’ll depend on what value of shares are sold which would increase the value of the company in which case SH’s holding wouldn’t be 99.9% but a %age of what the new value of the company would be (I think)

I think on this pod cast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] he said his share in Argyle is around  97%

25% was a ball park figure arrived at by SH stating he will still have a 75% stake, as TGWU says Hallett owns 97% so shareholders have 3%. I think the bit Rickler missed is that this is an offering of "new shares" so we can safely assume at Hallett is offering up approximately 22% of the total shares to fans.
Argyle shares could actually be a good investment if we managed to get to the CCC and become established for a season then they could be worth way more than you paid for them.  

Shares will only ever be worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Even if Argyle got to the PL, anyone buying the Club would just want Hallett's shares as that would be enough to control the Club. they would have no interest in buying anyone else's shares. And in the unlikely event that the Club looked like it might make a profit, the owner would just pay himself a salary so that the rest of the shares wouldn't even get a dividend.

SH saying fans can buy a few shares doesn't mean the Director's Box will need extending.

Once again...  As usual you are wrong about "Everyone else's shares".  If you actually  did own all of them (the so called 25%), you would only need 33.33% (plus a single share) of Simon Hallett's tally to gain control.

...and the bit about not paying a dividend if the "owner" decides to pay himself a salary is just utter bullshit.  Horrible information.  I'm betting you've never directly held a "share" of anything in your entire life.

How would you take control of Halletts 70 odd % if you owned 33.3%? As to Groveys point you would get a dividend if the club made a profit.

If you read Ricklers post properly what he’s wrote is correct, assume SH owned 75% and I owned 25%, I then buy a third of SH’s holding which is 25% plus 1 share, I now own 50% plus one so I become the larger shareholder

Correct maths but totally irrelevant SH is only selling around twenty per cent, just the normall haste to call someone out for being stupid and deviating from the thread.

Not totally irrelevant at all. ..and not deviating.  It was directly addressing Grovey's point.  In which he is totally wrong as Graiser points out.  Grovey (and you) still don't get it!

Seriously...  Both of you are 'fookin' stupid.  You can't even comprehend the simplest of principles.

Earwegoagain wrote:

As to Groveys point you would get a dividend if the club made a profit.

Really? What do Amazon, Google, Ford, GM, Boeing, Airbus and countless thousands of others all have in common?

None of them pay a dividend. Whether making a profit or not!

Grovehill wrote:

I think Rickler may have been referring to rules that say anyone owning 25% +1 shares in a company can make a formal takeover bid.

I wasn't. If you could actually read and comprehend the simplest of information, you would know what I was talking about.

Graiser seems to have no problem. But then again... He has a brain.

I think we all agree that if SH retains 75% of the shares, he controls the Club and decides if/when it is sold.

Grovehill wrote:

I think we all agree that if SH retains 75% of the shares, he controls the Club and decides if/when it is sold.

What a backtrack! ..and regarding the above. Duh! Talk about stating the obvious.

Every one of my post on the subject have stressed that SH will remain in control-where do you think I have backtracked?

Dan Cole only1argyle

As discussed in Chairman Simon Hallett’s most recent update for supporters, the club is currently exploring the possibility of issuing shares to members of the Green Army.

With this in mind, supporters on our database will receive a survey on the matter in the coming days.

We ask that as many supporters as possible complete this survey so that we are armed with the information required to make the best decision for the club and our supporters.

Argyle Chairman Simon Hallett said: “As I said in my latest Chairman’s Chat, I have been thinking about taking our fan engagement to the next level for a couple of years now, and now feels like the appropriate time to explore a fan share offer.

“Your feedback in this matter is a crucial element of this process. Understanding our fans’ views on a share offer will inform our actions, and ensure that we are able to make the decision that best serves the future of Argyle."

We will follow up with further updates once the survey data has been collated and reviewed, and thank all supporters in advance for their input.

Rickler wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

I think we all agree that if SH retains 75% of the shares, he controls the Club and decides if/when it is sold.

What a backtrack!   ..and regarding the above.  Duh!  Talk about stating the obvious.

That's the point I was making which started your latest tirade of abuse.

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board. Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Angry wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Agree about PASB. I served on it and a few of us realised it was just being used to show that the Argyle ownership was engaging with fans. We (the PASB) chose to disband before the stand makeover was finalised but we did ask some critical questions. The fact that these went unanswered (or we were given "incorrect" answers) is what made us realise PASB was being used rather than seen as a true fan engagement forum.

Mark Edwards wrote:

Angry wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Agree about PASB.  I served on it and a few of us realised it was just being used to show that the Argyle ownership was engaging with fans.  We (the PASB) chose to disband before the stand makeover was finalised but we did ask some critical questions.  The fact that these went unanswered (or we were given "incorrect" answers) is what made us realise PASB was being used rather than seen as a true fan engagement forum.

I think most of us realized the PASB was just a  Brent 'tool' from day one.

If fans want to "ensure supporters' views and impact are considered" then they can do it themselves by using the fan forums (personally or indirectly), by voicing opinions with the AFT, by engaging in social media, or by writing to the Chairman personally. The club also have a group with reps from different areas of the Stadium.  There are probably also other avenues.  How many do you want?   By most of these methods you will more than likely also get a direct response, rather than one 'filtered' through a "supporter Director".

A "supporters Director" is probably the worst option for fan representation in my opinion.

Mark Edwards wrote:

Angry wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Agree about PASB.  I served on it and a few of us realised it was just being used to show that the Argyle ownership was engaging with fans.  We (the PASB) chose to disband before the stand makeover was finalised but we did ask some critical questions.  The fact that these went unanswered (or we were given "incorrect" answers) is what made us realise PASB was being used rather than seen as a true fan engagement forum.

Rickler said it best many on here called the PASB what it was even had Damon on here as a member at the time before he went all passionate over religion. The fact so many concerns that were wanting to be brought up couldnt because starnes wouldnt allow it meant it was always doomed despite jon b being the only one to benefit from it.

Rickler wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Angry wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Agree about PASB.  I served on it and a few of us realised it was just being used to show that the Argyle ownership was engaging with fans.  We (the PASB) chose to disband before the stand makeover was finalised but we did ask some critical questions.  The fact that these went unanswered (or we were given "incorrect" answers) is what made us realise PASB was being used rather than seen as a true fan engagement forum.

I think most of us realized the PASB was just a  Brent 'tool' from day one.

If fans want to "ensure supporters' views and impact are considered" then they can do it themselves by using the fan forums (personally or indirectly), by voicing opinions with the AFT, by engaging in social media, or by writing to the Chairman personally. The club also have a group with reps from different areas of the Stadium.  There are probably also other avenues.  How many do you want?   By most of these methods you will more than likely also get a direct response, rather than one 'filtered' through a "supporter Director".

A "supporters Director" is probably the worst option for fan representation in my opinion.

got to protect those Chairmen eh? Fans forums are a load of wank Hallett has ignored fans concerns about the match day food and POTD ever since he's been here.

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Angry wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Agree about PASB.  I served on it and a few of us realised it was just being used to show that the Argyle ownership was engaging with fans.  We (the PASB) chose to disband before the stand makeover was finalised but we did ask some critical questions.  The fact that these went unanswered (or we were given "incorrect" answers) is what made us realise PASB was being used rather than seen as a true fan engagement forum.

I think most of us realized the PASB was just a  Brent 'tool' from day one.

If fans want to "ensure supporters' views and impact are considered" then they can do it themselves by using the fan forums (personally or indirectly), by voicing opinions with the AFT, by engaging in social media, or by writing to the Chairman personally. The club also have a group with reps from different areas of the Stadium.  There are probably also other avenues.  How many do you want?   By most of these methods you will more than likely also get a direct response, rather than one 'filtered' through a "supporter Director".

A "supporters Director" is probably the worst option for fan representation in my opinion.

got to protect those Chairmen eh? Fans forums are a load of wank Hallett has ignored fans concerns about the match day food and POTD ever since he's been here.

to be fair so did maccauley, staplewallet, sir dickhead and the shyster

Earwegoagain wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Angry wrote:

Mark Edwards wrote:

Maybe this could be a way of having a Supporter Director on the Board.  Might not have much power but could at least ensure supporters' views and impact were considered when decisions were made?

yes it could 

but its worth mentioning that we got a mankover stand in place of a new stand cause fans who the club consulted on behalf of fans said that's what fans wanted which isnt true at all on top of the PASAB fiasco leaves me questioning who they would hire and if that indivdual is going to be a pawn and we start seeing murals all over the place again.

Agree about PASB.  I served on it and a few of us realised it was just being used to show that the Argyle ownership was engaging with fans.  We (the PASB) chose to disband before the stand makeover was finalised but we did ask some critical questions.  The fact that these went unanswered (or we were given "incorrect" answers) is what made us realise PASB was being used rather than seen as a true fan engagement forum.

I think most of us realized the PASB was just a  Brent 'tool' from day one.

If fans want to "ensure supporters' views and impact are considered" then they can do it themselves by using the fan forums (personally or indirectly), by voicing opinions with the AFT, by engaging in social media, or by writing to the Chairman personally. The club also have a group with reps from different areas of the Stadium.  There are probably also other avenues.  How many do you want?   By most of these methods you will more than likely also get a direct response, rather than one 'filtered' through a "supporter Director".

A "supporters Director" is probably the worst option for fan representation in my opinion.

got to protect those Chairmen eh? Fans forums are a load of wank Hallett has ignored fans concerns about the match day food and POTD ever since he's been here.

LOl...   "Protect the Chairman?"!   From who?  A total wanker like you.?  Well one thing is certain...  You'll never be the fans rep.  Too stupid to complain to the right people in the right places.  Content with mouthing off to ten people on here and filling out a line on John Lloyds survey.

Way to go...  You're going to change the world one day!