The Second GAS Board get-together

Knowledge is power Peggy.

Now that he club's last major asset has been sold off (to the owners of the club) at the same time as an injured 39 year old is signed to help the fight against relegation out of the league, I think we all know what direction the Brent stewardship of PAFC is going to take. Run by fans for fans has been followed by Pounds before points (or even pounds before people if you think of the staff wages situation)

I think the GAS board will be a great PR exercise for the club ("fans have a say in how we run the club") but the reality will be that the GAS board will have virtually no influence -no I take that back- no influence at all in the future direction of the club.

Their major input will be giving advice on where the pasties come from. They will have about as much real influence on PAFC as the Supermarket watchdog has on Tesco.

But at least they can stop complaining about potholes in the carpark!!

Tringreen wrote:

Knowledge is power Peggy.

And power corrupts!

knecht wrote:

My comment when the second meeting was postponed along with the announcement that the process was to be truncated was to question whether the club were actually serious about the GASB. It was said that the interim period would allow for wider publicity outside Internetland. There are no more home games before 31st March. That's one avenue of publicity closed. Let's hope there is an enormous drive in the local media.

Nothing more to say, really.

I've heard that Saturday's meeting will be postponed again. Professor Wheeler's duvet is in desperate need of washing- and as its quite big- he needs to go to a launderette to wash it. Some things are more important than silly supporters' meetings especially when it involves skid marks.

Tringreen wrote:

I would have thought that the small issue of avoiding relegation should take priority just now, as the outcome will have a bearing on the future of any fans representation.

Stone the crows.

Completely agree 100% Tring. Blimey.

GreenTint wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

I would have thought that the small issue of avoiding relegation should take priority just now, as the outcome will have a bearing on the future of any fans representation.

Stone the crows.

Completely agree 100% Tring. Blimey.

Fair enough. Except:

1. Preparations for the establishment of the GASBoard can't possibly have any bearing on results on the pitch, and nor could they influence whether or not we avoid losing our League status.

2. If - for whatever reason - there has been a decision not to hold the meeting it would only be polite to let people know.

GreenTint wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

I would have thought that the small issue of avoiding relegation should take priority just now, as the outcome will have a bearing on the future of any fans representation.

Stone the crows.

Completely agree 100% Tring. Blimey.

Ha ha ha ! It was a simple enough concept to bridge the divide.

Peggy wrote:

GreenTint wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

I would have thought that the small issue of avoiding relegation should take priority just now, as the outcome will have a bearing on the future of any fans representation.

Stone the crows.

Completely agree 100% Tring. Blimey.

Fair enough. Except:

1. Preparations for the establishment of the GASBoard can't possibly have any bearing on results on the pitch, and nor could they influence whether or not we avoid losing our League status.

2. If - for whatever reason - there has been a decision not to hold the meeting it would only be polite to let people know.

The Gas Board is just more hot air ! A few more approved individuals 'feeling' important. If Brent was really interested in the voice of the people, for anything other than how much money they'll save him, he'd promote the democratically elected Trust to be all the hot air we need and give it real influence.

Apparently the meeting will now be going ahead: see here

If I were a cynic, I'd suggest the number of comments about the lack of information must have reminded the organisers that they hadn't done anything about it.

will the GAS board be able to veto the sale of the car park ????

IPad posting still problematic.... I've stuck some of my thoughts re GAS Board on Pasoti - I'd value comments / thoughts....

When I get to a PC I'll edit & add to this.

Jon

Peggy wrote:

Apparently the meeting will now be going ahead: see here

If I were a cynic, I'd suggest the number of comments about the lack of information must have reminded the organisers that they hadn't done anything about it.

Ah The President (gasBoard Chairman/facilitator/middle man/eggs in every basket) is relishing the debate before Saturday. Perhaps you're right all it needed despite indication to the contary was a bit of bottom up action.

Is 'bottom up action' the same as a kick up the arse?

Just wondering, like

For what it's worth, I've had a text message from The Supreme Leader, which I reproduce in full here, for information purposes:

"Hi all, a GASB update will go out tonight/tomorrow. Basically looking for proposals on numbers/composition of GASB by 12 noon friday so David Wheeler can find common ground and put proposals to Saturday's meeting. Ideas from groups and individuals welcomed. Just drop me an email. Update will explain more. Chris."

So, having cancelled previous meetings we now have 96 hours to come up with our proposals for the composition of, and numbers on, the GASBoard. Why we couldn't have been asked this far earlier so a proper consultation could take place is beyond me. After all, how many supporters groups will be able to meet this week to consult with their members? How many have actually met over the last few weeks and could have discussed this if they'd been asked about it earlier?

And still nothing appears to be happening to widen the participation - nothin in the club programme, nothing at Home Park, and unless I've missed it, nothing (to date) in the local press or other media.

What's the betting that Saturday's meeting will be a gathering of all the usual suspects (myself included)?

There really does seem to be a total reluctance to give up any control of the process, or delegate anything regarding the decision making or organisational matters. it's all being done on a very last-minute basis. Cynics (Who? Me?) may suggest that some of this is a deliberate attempt to prevent wide debate about the GASBoard taking place within supporters groups; even that it's being done so that only the aforementioned usual suspects have any input - with myself there as Token Freak.

I'm struggling to see that 'the Club' is actually serious about the whole initiative.

For me, Andy (and JonB), the whole GASB just comes across as platitudes intended to divide and rule. The issues facing the club next season will be, to my mind, wildly different depending on which league we find ourselves in. The process has been dragged out so that nothing of any substance will be decided - and it indeed should not be decided - with regard to the GASB before Argyle's 2012/13 fate has been decided.

Jon, I find your suggestion about some kind of vote on Saturday to decide an interim board (for want of a better phrase) troubling. Where then, once that it decided? When does it become properly representative and 'marketed' to the rest of the fanbase? It won't. Ever. And it'll just divide the fanbase further.

Evening all,

Thanks for the comments to date...

In particular, thanks Nick (ps iPad's still a problem on here; phones ok though). Yes, I can understand reservations to what I've mooted in text - as context, i hoped that my comments would provoke a bit of debate as firstly, I was concerned about the perceived inaction & saw it as an option to get something moving & secondly, it's all feeling a little like the way other supporter's groups are set up.

To paraphrase what I posted on Pasoti, I very much see this Board not as a sort of Fan's club, but as an independent club function with the right people in the right roles.

Having said all of that, I know many of my weaknesses, one of which is that I'm a chronic activist. As such, if the majority of others think that I'm wrong & that a slower, more thoughtful approach is required, I would be a fool not to take heed & view it as a good indication that I should be reflecting & rethinking.

Cheers,

Jon

Those who attended the first meeting and still had interest were asked to contact David Wheeler and he was going to get back to you to ask you your opinions on how the GasB should to be made up?

Did that happen?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

JonB wrote:

Evening all,

Thanks for the comments to date...

In particular, thanks Nick (ps iPad's still a problem on here; phones ok though). Yes, I can understand reservations to what I've mooted in text - as context, i hoped that my comments would provoke a bit of debate as firstly, I was concerned about the perceived inaction & saw it as an option to get something moving & secondly, it's all feeling a little like the way other supporter's groups are set up.

To paraphrase what I posted on Pasoti, I very much see this Board not as a sort of Fan's club, but as an independent club function with the right people in the right roles.

Having said all of that, I know many of my weaknesses, one of which is that I'm a chronic activist. As such, if the majority of others think that I'm wrong & that a slower, more thoughtful approach is required, I would be a fool not to take heed & view it as a good indication that I should be reflecting & rethinking.

Cheers,

Jon

I wouldn't say that being a 'chronic activist' and wanting to get things done is a weakness, Jon! I just feel that what you are mooting would undermine the GAS board as a representative body, and if it's not genuinely representative of the fanbase then I'm not sure what the point of it is.

Would I be wrong to suggest it's the procrastination of the Prof., JB and company that have spurred your train of thought on this, Jon, or have I read that wrong? It is, after all, their initiative.

Ultimately, though, I just don't get why the Trust and its democratically elected board can't fulfill the role the GASB is supposedly meant to take on.

Nick wrote:

Ultimately, though, I just don't get why the Trust and its democratically elected board can't fulfill the role the GASB is supposedly meant to take on.

Totally agree, Nick. As I've argued all along, the Trust is democratically elected, accountable, independent, has a bit of money to run itself with, and has access to resources like financial and legal advice. The GASBoard could never be all these things, although it should of course be democratically elected and accountable.

However, since its establishment was trumpeted so loudly - wasn't it meant to be a first in English football? - you'd think a bit more effort (no - a lot more effort) could have been put into making it happen.

Trust Board comments on GAS Board discussions

Tim Chown wrote:

Trust Board comments on GAS Board discussions

Spot on, Tim. This whole exercise has been blighted by poor organisation, dreadful communication and a complete inability to delegate any sort of responsibility. Quite how are fans supposed to engage with the process when the only fans who know anything about it are the usual supects on pasoti and ATD ? It's a mess which needs to be cleared up quickly.

Excellent response by The Trust.

Rickler wrote:

Those who attended the first meeting and still had interest were asked to contact David Wheeler and he was going to get back to you to ask you your opinions on how the GasB should to be made up?

Did that happen?

The Trust wrote to Prof Wheeler explaining the Trust's history and past role, as well as its objectives as per the new Model Rules. Turns out he was away for two weeks, but we got a positive reply this week and were in the process of arranging a meeting with him for next week sometime when the very specific call came at short notice from the club for GASB terms of reference and composition proposals.

We feel that's premature; it's far to early to decide the numbers and sources. The consultations should happen, and offline fans given proper time to get engaged if they wish. We should hear more about differences in the German model, on the club's recently revealed corporate governance regime, and what the SD initiated licensing proposals might lead to. Who knows how (or whether) the GASB will look... but if it is to have the best chance of success it shouldn't be, nor does it need to be, rushed.

There are one or two that wish this to be rushed through and without reason, that alone should ensure that the Trust leaves no stone unturned and that time is taken to digest every aspect of this "deal".

I would not be at all surprised to hear about a nicely put ultimatum before long along the lines of "get on the train or leave the station", such is the disorder, mismanagement and almost arrogant attitude of this incredibly unorganized, mockery of a process. To me it seems designed to tick the boxes of PR rather then to benefit the fans or the club.

I suppose time will tell.