Argyle Fans' Trust Open Meeting for all fans

[memory man]

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.

Someone has to write the first words of a concept. I think your dismissal of "jimsing's" idea as "absolute poppycock" would carry more weight if you added your alternative concept, an idea or suggestion that you perceive to be agreeable across the whole fanbase? Identifying a problem is the easy bit - it is the solution that tends to be the hard part.

 

[Princerock]

Knocking down is far easier than building up....that's why keyboard 'heros' are ten a penny.

 

[TinTin]

No ! No !! No !!!

ONE fans representative group for ALL the diversity of opinion shown within PAFC - and even on the small scale we see here on Pasoti ?

:funny:

"OK.................................................Democracy rules and is living in Plymouth.................................

...........................................................BUT you can only vote for ONE candidate !!

Why ?

Cos we ARE a democracy, simple 'innit ?

AND to prove that........................................... there is ONLY one candidate - to make it easier"

There WILL be tears at the end of it all......................there always is.

BUT those who wish to take it on.......................good luck, be brave and thick-skinned.

In the meantime, I will continue in my own little undemocratic way............and watch the fall out from afar.

For simply football reasons -

Keep the Faith :scarf:

 

[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.

We're not talking Trade Unions here are we? We are talking about creating a body which is able to speak on behalf of all its supporters to the people who own and run the football club, a body who can air the concerns of the ordinary supporter about the football club that they love and support.

We are talking about the opposite of the old adage - divide to conquer.

We are talking about creating ONE supporter group to act on behalf of ALL supporters, and in order for that to happen properly, there has to be some sort of financial backing for the group, which will come from the nominal annual subscription charge.

If you don't want a say in how the club is run, then don't join. If you are only interested in the football, then don't join (only a small proportion of the fanbase will be interested in joining anyway). If you are happy to leave it to others, then don't join. But if you want to have your two penneth, if you want to hold sway with the football club, if you want the AFT to support what YOU want, be it praise or criticism or question, then you can do that by joining the AFT, a body formed to represent you, the supporter.

 

[dunlop]

Democracy your having a laugh a lot contributing to this post would not recognise it if it smacked them in the face, they remind me of the current Labour Party under Corbyn.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Or the leaders or chairmen of the various fan groups ARE the actual Argyle Fans Trust. Each group would put forward their chairman to form the board of the AFT with one voice speaking to the club and each member of the AFT would then report back to their fan group.

 

[jimsing]

Good idea but.........................Can you imagine the number of new fan groups that would form in order to get a seat at the table?

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Good idea but.........................Can you imagine the number of new fan groups that would form in order to get a seat at the table?

....... with the criteria of being in existence for at least one year. :thumbs:

 

[Kentishgreen]

I know why not start The Plymouth Argyle Supporters Club!

 

[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.

We're not talking Trade Unions here are we? We are talking about creating a body which is able to speak on behalf of all its supporters to the people who own and run the football club, a body who can air the concerns of the ordinary supporter about the football club that they love and support.

We are talking about the opposite of the old adage - divide to conquer.

We are talking about creating ONE supporter group to act on behalf of ALL supporters, and in order for that to happen properly, there has to be some sort of financial backing for the group, which will come from the nominal annual subscription charge.

If you don't want a say in how the club is run, then don't join. If you are only interested in the football, then don't join (only a small proportion of the fanbase will be interested in joining anyway). If you are happy to leave it to others, then don't join. But if you want to have your two penneth, if you want to hold sway with the football club, if you want the AFT to support what YOU want, be it praise or criticism or question, then you can do that by joining the AFT, a body formed to represent you,]

What you are suggesting is one in the same manor though, If you weren't in the union back in the day you had no say in what went on or were excluded from negotiations/ discussions with the company. Why should I for example to be forced to join the trust just if I want to question PAFC on a particular subject or do not agree with the AFT's majority. Much better for various fans groups so there can be a greater choice if you do not agree with the direction one group is operating. By your thinking should we not all be supporting one united political party as they wold be able to represent all of the people in the UK better?

As for Memory mans idea of finding a solution that is agreeable to all is near on impossible. If I could find the answer to that I would have enough money to by the club, build an 80,000 seater stadium & be competing in the Champions leauge.

 

[TinTin]

Jimsing

I love your model of a democratic representative fans group BUT...................................

............as an example, 10 fans wish to promote their opinion on whatever issue as they are die-hard Argyle supporters...............they are diverse in age, location, longevity, gender and status of membership....................

..................they ALL join the AFT [or whatever the name of the fans group] as they want to voice their opinion and the AFT is their sole voice.

They have NO other choice................they must TWIST or TWIST [sorry !!!]

BUT wait.........................they ALL hold different views on the purchase of buying the freehold of the stadium, the development of the stadium, the new Far Post Club, the Argyle Angels, the goal celebration music, the cost of a half-time oggie and EVERYTHING ELSE.

I could give you some possible options that COULD be provided BUT what would YOUR model provide to these 10 die-hards ?

For simply the football and from afar........

Keep the Faith :scarf:

 

[memory man]

Jimsing

I love your model of a democratic representative fans group BUT...................................

............as an example, 10 fans wish to promote their opinion on whatever issue as they are die-hard Argyle supporters...............they are diverse in age, location, longevity, gender and status of membership....................

..................they ALL join the AFT [or whatever the name of the fans group] as they want to voice their opinion and the AFT is their sole voice.

They have NO other choice................they must TWIST or TWIST [sorry !!!]

BUT wait.........................they ALL hold different views on the purchase of buying the freehold of the stadium, the development of the stadium, the new Far Post Club, the Argyle Angels, the goal celebration music, the cost of a half-time oggie and EVERYTHING ELSE.

I could give you some possible options that COULD be provided BUT what would YOUR model provide to these 10 die-hards ?

For simply the football and from afar........

Keep the Faith :scarf:

Perhaps it could be called the GAS Board ...... oh wait a minute!

 

[IJN]

Good idea but.........................Can you imagine the number of new fan groups that would form in order to get a seat at the table?

Look at how the AFT (under Symons) stitched up the PASB 'leaders'.

I'm sorry but it's a bit like Communism, great in theory but...............

 

[mervyn]

Given that James Brent is probably the most approachable Chairman Argyle has ever had, regularly sits amongst supporters at away games and regularly attends supporters meetings, why is there any need for a formal fans trust? What's to be gained? He's not stupid. If he learns there's a ground swell of opinion for or against any proposed action, I'm sure he soon gets the message and responds accordingly.

 

[Argyledad]

Firstly thank you to all those Argyle fans who have helped make this a constructive rather than destructive thread. I would like to try and answer Quizmike and Jimsing’s questions.
Firstly Jimsing, your comment: “I think it was the other way round, Esmer. The AFT withdrew from the discussions, not the board” is obviously untrue. I have quite clearly stated that James Brent refused permission for his CEO to hold further meetings with me as of 28th April. I have no reason to tell lies. That is a fact.
In response to Quizmike’s questions:
1. I agree with Ian that: “All online polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. Whichever way the votes come out”. The AFT board felt it had a clear mandate from its members to apply for ACV status.
2. The club were given 12 months notice that we would be applying for ACV status. I was told by the CEO that it would be a waste of time and that it would make no difference.
3. While not aware that this was the only case ever of a council having to place an ACV against itself, we were very aware that over 20 other professional clubs from Liverpool and Newcastle through to our neighbours Torquay had successfully applied for this status.
4. It was not the view of the AFT board that ‘the ACV was useless’.
5. Graham Clarke is not a member of the AFT Board. We never anticipated stopping the Club from exercising the option to buy the freehold. Our concern has always been who it might then be sold on to. The ACV gives a degree of protection and advance notice when this happens.
6. Because of what happened the last time the club obtained the freehold.
7. However the Never Again statement, on top of the ACV, would look to the general public, there was never, ever any correlation between the two. The AFTs decision to suspend further dialogue with the club was made before any discussion by ex-chairs and others with the authors of the Never Again statement. I added my name when asked to because, on a personal level, I believe that our club should remain under public ownership.
Again, on a personal note, I look forward to the resumption of discussions between the club and the elected members of the Argyle Fans’ Trust and was pleased that James Brent left the door open at the recent open fans' forum. There are important issues ranging from the safety of our stadium through to next year’s kit choice that our members could be helping with. We are there, not to tell James Brent what to do, but to act a critical friends should the club so wish.