Argyle Fans' Trust Open Meeting for all fans

[jimsing]

When I was elected to the AFT committee two years ago, it was felt there was a clear mandate from the membership for applying for ACV status. Our survey, published in January 2014, did indeed show a 61.4% majority in favour of “Home Park remaining in Public Ownership through the council”.
Since our most recent survey there have been four others on PASOTI, the Evening Herald, ATD and P A Free Chat. Together these polls have received 1256 votes, with a total of 66.4% requesting PAFC to remain within local authority control, 31.4% against and 2.6% undecided.
I am not here to question the veracity of these polls, only to stress that the AFT acted in good faith, based on the information it had at the time.

I could not understand what advantage there was in applying for an ACV status for Home Park at the time. It was never going to prevent the board from purchasing the lease, although it would have delayed them, and the AFT were never going to be able to put in a bid to purchase it themselves.

It would appear that the matter has caused great grief to both the AFT and the board, with the result that neither are now talking to each other.

I understand that the AFT's intention was to try to keep the ground under public ownership, but I could not, and still cannot, understand why they attempted to use this means of doing so.

Could anyone from AFT please explain to me the understanding that went into the application for the ACV status, and what they expected to achieve from it?

 

[IJN]

Well, what short memories some people have, back in the far distant past of December 2010 our club was on the brink of going out of the league and a group of supporters got together and set up the AFT.
That group were the soul reason we have a club today !!!
Now don't tell me Mr Brent saved the club on his own, if it was not for the AFT and their persistence fighting on all fronts Mr Brent would not have gotten involved.
He was a reluctant buyer and stated that at the time.
Since its inception the AFT has had many board members come and go for one reason or another, (Usually from the abuse given to them from key board warriors who have nothing better to do then criticise everything any one tries to do on our behalf)
Every one who goes on the Board of the AFT is a true Argyle supporter and the reason they are there and willing to take the flack is to look after the supporters interests and the welfare of our club.
So whilst there is one supporter willing to stand up and look after the welfare of our club and my interest as a supporter they will always have my support.

I almost totally agree.

There was one, Symons, in my view who took the position to cause maximum damage to JB and the board, plus of course he seemed to like the kudos of being Chairman and not the work that went with it. The teaming up with the Friends of Central Park (which is what the Senior Greens were told by their Chairwoman) was a spiteful and counterproductive idea, led only by Symons dislike of all things 'capitalist'.

Apart from that, JBE, GC, CW, WB and certainly Bob Foale are supporters of our fine club who have only the best interest of our club at heart.

I will always be a member whilst there's a decent person at the helm.

 

[Quizmike]

When I was elected to the AFT committee two years ago, it was felt there was a clear mandate from the membership for applying for ACV status. Our survey, published in January 2014, did indeed show a 61.4% majority in favour of “Home Park remaining in Public Ownership through the council”.
Since our most recent survey there have been four others on PASOTI, the Evening Herald, ATD and P A Free Chat. Together these polls have received 1256 votes, with a total of 66.4% requesting PAFC to remain within local authority control, 31.4% against and 2.6% undecided.
I am not here to question the veracity of these polls, only to stress that the AFT acted in good faith, based on the information it had at the time.

May I ask a few questions?

1) What are the figures on votes excluding the Herald, which even it's own comments section admits is flawed?

2) Can you confirm that the ACV was placed upon the club against the wishes of the board?

3) Were you aware that this was the only case ever of a council having to place an ACV against itself?

4) Why, when it was pointed out to you that the ACV was useless did you still go ahead with it?

5) To quote Graham Clarke

On the AFT, the decision to pursue the ACV was when the tide turned in my view, certainly in their relations with the Club.. As a member I went to the last AGM to advocate strongly against it. I didn't win the day. It didn't, as some on the AFT may misguided have hoped, stop the Club exercising the option to buy the freehold. It could never have done.

Why did the AFT want to stop the club obtaining the freehold?

6) Even if it wasn't the intention of the AFT, surely you must have realised that the Never Again statement, on top of the ACV, would look to the general public to be an expression of distrust of the board by the fans? What was the actual intention there?

Any answers would be gratefully received.

 

[esmer]

If the ACV has no relevance why has it so upset the board to the extent that they have cut off communications with the AFT. Seems a bit petty to me. As Mr Foale has said, whatever the rights and wrongs, the AFT acted in good faith, surely Mr Brent and the board can respect that.

 

[jimsing]

If the ACV has no relevance why has it so upset the board to the extent that they have cut off communications with the AFT. Seems a bit petty to me. As Mr Foale has said, whatever the rights and wrongs, the AFT acted in good faith, surely Mr Brent and the board can respect that.

Acted in good faith AGAINST the board, Esmer.

 

[esmer]

If the ACV has no relevance why has it so upset the board to the extent that they have cut off communications with the AFT. Seems a bit petty to me. As Mr Foale has said, whatever the rights and wrongs, the AFT acted in good faith, surely Mr Brent and the board can respect that.

Acted in good faith AGAINST the board, Esmer.

The board and the AFT will not always agree what is in the best interests of the club; no reason for the board to throw their toys out of the pram.

 

[jimsing]

I think it was the other way round, Esmer. The AFT withdrew from the discussions, not the board.

 

[monkeywrench]

Hi Es hope you're well. Wasn't it the AFT that stopped communicating with the board, not the other way around, or did I imagine that?

Edit : sorry jimsing, you replied a fraction before me

 

[Quizmike]

If the ACV has no relevance why has it so upset the board to the extent that they have cut off communications with the AFT. Seems a bit petty to me. As Mr Foale has said, whatever the rights and wrongs, the AFT acted in good faith, surely Mr Brent and the board can respect that.

Because to the outside world it looks like a statement of distrust in the board?

Secondly, as we know for inside the AFT that it was pointed out to be a fruitless endeavour, it can hardly be described as an act of good faith if certain members of the AFT were actively trying to block the sale of Home Park

 

[Fat_green_belly]

When I was elected to the AFT committee two years ago, it was felt there was a clear mandate from the membership for applying for ACV status. Our survey, published in January 2014, did indeed show a 61.4% majority in favour of “Home Park remaining in Public Ownership through the council”.
Since our most recent survey there have been four others on PASOTI, the Evening Herald, ATD and P A Free Chat. Together these polls have received 1256 votes, with a total of 66.4% requesting PAFC to remain within local authority control, 31.4% against and 2.6% undecided.
I am not here to question the veracity of these polls, only to stress that the AFT acted in good faith, based on the information it had at the time.

I do question the veracity of your info that comes from online polls especially the herald.
Twice now it has been got at. The first time the result was actually printed in the paper on that day the HHP planning permission
was granted by pcc a few years ago so possibly could have influenced the result. The poll had thousands of hits on it from both sides.
I couldnt understand where all these hits were coming from at the time.
A clue was in the comments were someone amazingly with an alias of "ATD moderator" was berating anybody in support of the proposal on there.
So i voted myself and then straight after again for my brother and it registered both proving it was open to abuse.
The recent one you mention i had a look at. This time after voting it wouldnt let me vote again but there were a highly unlikely thousand
votes again already been cast? With about 3/4-1 in favour of keeping HP in public ownership. So thats nearly all of your 1256 votes. There were
only 2 comments this time below too for over a thousand votes? And one of them was questioning if the poll was being manipulated as he had noted
that hundreds of votes had been added overnight? With so much interest in this poll why didnt the EH put the result in the story when
they eventually ran it. Did they smell a fish too?
The other guy in the comments was linked to ATD as well when i checked his status. So an undemocratic not democratic theme developing
it would seem.
So no way were these 2 polls legit. This new one was definately being fiddled some way or another. Sorry. If you want to know what all
the fans think then it has to be on the day of match on the turn styles. Or for the aft? The survey you do of its members is the best way to
get the correct info imho.

 

[esmer]

Hi Es hope you're well. Wasn't it the AFT that stopped communicating with the board, not the other way around, or did I imagine that?

Edit : sorry jimsing, you replied a fraction before me

I'm fine thanks, hope you are keeping well too. According to Mr Foale's post on page 6 of this thread it was the club who, in retaliation to the AVC issue, ended discussions between the club's CEO and the AFT, not the other way round.

 

[IJN]

All online polls are 'warped'.

A poll on here, would be more 'green tint' as most of our members are that way inclined.

ATD and Freec Hat are biased towards what those people's attitude is, and most of us know what that is. But I would suggest that both of them reflect the same thought process.

The Herald is infected by the same people, you only have to look at their thumbs up and thumbs down campaigns to see that the multists are doing their usual thing.

All online polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. Whichever way the votes come out.

 

[jimsing]

Hi Es hope you're well. Wasn't it the AFT that stopped communicating with the board, not the other way around, or did I imagine that?

Edit : sorry jimsing, you replied a fraction before me

I'm fine thanks, hope you are keeping well too. According to Mr Foale's post on page 6 of this thread it was the club who, in retaliation to the AVC issue, ended discussions between the club's CEO and the AFT, not the other way round.

Hope this clarifies the situation from The Chairman's Report in August this year:

http://www.argylefanstrust.com/2016/08/25/aft-chairmans-report-12/

Quote "It is therefore with sadness that the Board of the AFT is now withdrawing from any further dialogue with the Board of PAFC"

 

[esmer]

Hi Es hope you're well. Wasn't it the AFT that stopped communicating with the board, not the other way around, or did I imagine that?

Edit : sorry jimsing, you replied a fraction before me

I'm fine thanks, hope you are keeping well too. According to Mr Foale's post on page 6 of this thread it was the club who, in retaliation to the AVC issue, ended discussions between the club's CEO and the AFT, not the other way round.

Hope this clarifies the situation from The Chairman's Report in August this year:

http://www.argylefanstrust.com/2016/08/25/aft-chairmans-report-12/

Quote "It is therefore with sadness that the Board of the AFT is now withdrawing from any further dialogue with the Board of PAFC"

If you believe Mr Foale's post that's akin to saying we started the second world war.

 

[Fat_green_belly]

All online polls are 'warped'.

A poll on here, would be more 'green tint' as most of our members are that way inclined.

ATD and Freec Hat are biased towards what those people's attitude is, and most of us know what that is. But I would suggest that both of them reflect the same thought process.

The Herald is infected by the same people, you only have to look at their thumbs up and thumbs down campaigns to see that the multists are doing their usual thing.

All online polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. Whichever way the votes come out.

Yep i had about 30 dislikes in about 5 minutes when i commented in favour of the
development last time. I was so incensed being a passionate democrat that i went on
ATD as a guest for the first and only time and noted that the moderator was known to me.
His username was still the same on there as it used to be on here. Initials of TG.
Might have been a different moderator mind. To be fair to him. The vitriol towards others
was still the same though judging by what i read on there.