Argyle Fans' Trust Open Meeting for all fans

[memory man]

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.

I am a tad confused here. I thought we did start WW2. We may not have caused it but we did start it.

11.15 a.m. 3rd September, 1939 and Chamberlain broadcasts to the nation :-

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a
final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were
prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would
exist between us.

I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that
consequently this country is at war with Germany.

 

[IJN]

:lol: Good point Steve.

 

[Knarf Reprah]

No we didn't , Germany started it by invading Poland! If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been a global war .
If we hadn't declared war, France and Poland would have anyway

 

[PL2 3DQ]

No we didn't , Germany started it by invading Poland! If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been a global war .
If we hadn't declared war, France and Poland would have anyway

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

No we didn't , Germany started it by invading Poland! If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been a global war .
If we hadn't declared war, France and Poland would have anyway

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Nice one Basil

:funny:

 

[memory man]

No we didn't , Germany started it by invading Poland! If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been a global war .
If we hadn't declared war, France and Poland would have anyway

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. But whatever the difference is between declaring war and causing war, lets get back to the topic. I do think that all the politics that surround the support now can cause hurt to some really genuine and well-meaning volunteers. I'd hate to be giving my time to a cause and then have every word picked over and examined for a motive.

 

[Knarf Reprah]

No we didn't , Germany started it by invading Poland! If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been a global war .
If we hadn't declared war, France and Poland would have anyway

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. But whatever the difference is between declaring war and causing war, lets get back to the topic. I do think that all the politics that surround the support now can cause hurt to some really genuine and well-meaning volunteers. I'd hate to be giving my time to a cause and then have every word picked over and examined for a motive.

Quite

 

[davie nine]

Surely, now that the club has bought the ground, the 2 Boards should shake hands and find some common ground for the AFT, under the chairmanship of Mr Foale, to resume it's relationship with the Argyle Board as soon as possible.

 

[jimsing]

In my opinion Brent is wrong to take the views of ALL of the supporter clubs that we have. It is understandable, but it is not helpful when something that affects ALL of the fanbase has to go through so many factions before the supporters as a whole can put forward their views on the matter to the board.

The AFT would have more authority if it was the only official supporters club that could meet with the PAFC board and therefore put its members opinions/questions/offerings to the Club on behalf of ALL supporters, or at least those that are members of the AFT.

This would mean that if you, as a supporter, had a view that you wanted to be put to the board, then you would have to be a member of the AFT for them to take up on your behalf.

I can hear the mumblings now from those that disagree, but it would validate the AFT as the one and only supporters group that could advise/discuss/question the board and it would increase the number of members in the AFT if fans had an opinion that they wanted to be discussed by the Committee before possibly being put to the board.

Important matters would require the AFT to ballot their members before they pursued the matter any further, and it would give the AFT authority to act on behalf of its supporters.

There need not be any restriction on membership, other than a yearly fee, and being a member of another supporter group (eg PACSA ) would not deprive you of being able to join the AFT if you wanted your vote to count. These supporter groups can continue to get together and would not be affected in any other way.

The AFT Committee would be beholding to its members, and the Chairman and their Committee would be liable for any actions that were taken by the AFT without the full support of the membership.

Brent will be making a rod for his own back if he takes the views of ALL the separate clubs formed by supporter groups, especially if there are differing opinions, and surely the views of ONE supporter group would be more meaningful and have more impact than several diverse views on a particular subject.

 

[Quizmike]

In my opinion Brent is wrong to take the views of ALL of the supporter clubs that we have. It is understandable, but it is not helpful when something that affects ALL of the fanbase has to go through so many factions before the supporters as a whole can put forward their views on the matter to the board.

The AFT would have more authority if it was the only official supporters club that could meet with the PAFC board and therefore put its members opinions/questions/offerings to the Club on behalf of ALL supporters, or at least those that are members of the AFT.

This would mean that if you, as a supporter, had a view that you wanted to be put to the board, then you would have to be a member of the AFT for them to take up on your behalf.

I can hear the mumblings now from those that disagree, but it would validate the AFT as the one and only supporters group that could advise/discuss/question the board and it would increase the number of members in the AFT if fans had an opinion that they wanted to be discussed by the Committee before possibly being put to the board.

Important matters would require the AFT to ballot their members before they pursued the matter any further, and it would give the AFT authority to act on behalf of its supporters.

There need not be any restriction on membership, other than a yearly fee, and being a member of another supporter group (eg PACSA ) would not deprive you of being able to join the AFT if you wanted your vote to count. These supporter groups can continue to get together and would not be affected in any other way.

The AFT Committee would be beholding to its members, and the Chairman and their Committee would be liable for any actions that were taken by the AFT without the full support of the membership.

Brent will be making a rod for his own back if he takes the views of ALL the separate clubs formed by supporter groups, especially if there are differing opinions, and surely the views of ONE supporter group would be more meaningful and have more impact than several diverse views on a particular subject.

This is actually a very good idea. Proper fan democracy.

 

[TinTin]

Democracy = 1 choice ?

Nah !!

Keep the Faith :scarf:

 

[PL2 3DQ]

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.

Those are fair and relevant questions, hopefully they will be answered.

And in light of the club and the AFT not talking to each other should the motto "a voice for the fans" be scrapped?

 

[Knarf Reprah]

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.

Those are fair and relevant questions, hopefully they will be answered.

And in light of the club and the AFT not talking to each other should the motto "a voice for the fans" be scrapped?

:nworthy:

 

[Argyle Nutter]

In my opinion Brent is wrong to take the views of ALL of the supporter clubs that we have. It is understandable, but it is not helpful when something that affects ALL of the fanbase has to go through so many factions before the supporters as a whole can put forward their views on the matter to the board.

The AFT would have more authority if it was the only official supporters club that could meet with the PAFC board and therefore put its members opinions/questions/offerings to the Club on behalf of ALL supporters, or at least those that are members of the AFT.

This would mean that if you, as a supporter, had a view that you wanted to be put to the board, then you would have to be a member of the AFT for them to take up on your behalf.

I can hear the mumblings now from those that disagree, but it would validate the AFT as the one and only supporters group that could advise/discuss/question the board and it would increase the number of members in the AFT if fans had an opinion that they wanted to be discussed by the Committee before possibly being put to the board.

Important matters would require the AFT to ballot their members before they pursued the matter any further, and it would give the AFT authority to act on behalf of its supporters.

There need not be any restriction on membership, other than a yearly fee, and being a member of another supporter group (eg PACSA ) would not deprive you of being able to join the AFT if you wanted your vote to count. These supporter groups can continue to get together and would not be affected in any other way.

The AFT Committee would be beholding to its members, and the Chairman and their Committee would be liable for any actions that were taken by the AFT without the full support of the membership.

Brent will be making a rod for his own back if he takes the views of ALL the separate clubs formed by supporter groups, especially if there are differing opinions, and surely the views of ONE supporter group would be more meaningful and have more impact than several diverse views on a particular subject.

What absolute poppycock, what your advocating is that unless you join the AFT you have no vote or say in the running of the club, Bit like the old union closed shop syndrome. Yea that will work I'm sure.

 

[jimsing]

In my opinion Brent is wrong to take the views of ALL of the supporter clubs that we have. It is understandable, but it is not helpful when something that affects ALL of the fanbase has to go through so many factions before the supporters as a whole can put forward their views on the matter to the board.

The AFT would have more authority if it was the only official supporters club that could meet with the PAFC board and therefore put its members opinions/questions/offerings to the Club on behalf of ALL supporters, or at least those that are members of the AFT.

This would mean that if you, as a supporter, had a view that you wanted to be put to the board, then you would have to be a member of the AFT for them to take up on your behalf.

I can hear the mumblings now from those that disagree, but it would validate the AFT as the one and only supporters group that could advise/discuss/question the board and it would increase the number of members in the AFT if fans had an opinion that they wanted to be discussed by the Committee before possibly being put to the board.

Important matters would require the AFT to ballot their members before they pursued the matter any further, and it would give the AFT authority to act on behalf of its supporters.

There need not be any restriction on membership, other than a yearly fee, and being a member of another supporter group (eg PACSA ) would not deprive you of being able to join the AFT if you wanted your vote to count. These supporter groups can continue to get together and would not be affected in any other way.

The AFT Committee would be beholding to its members, and the Chairman and their Committee would be liable for any actions that were taken by the AFT without the full support of the membership.

Brent will be making a rod for his own back if he takes the views of ALL the separate clubs formed by supporter groups, especially if there are differing opinions, and surely the views of ONE supporter group would be more meaningful and have more impact than several diverse views on a particular subject.

What absolute poppycock, what your advocating is that unless you join the AFT you have no vote or say in the running of the club, Bit like the old union closed shop syndrome. Yea that will work I'm sure.

That is correct. It will give more credence to the AFT as being the mouthpiece of the PAFC supporter, and will give greater importance to the concerns of the ordinary fan.

What's wrong with that?