-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
The AFT lost the ability to represent fans and hold any sway over the club when it rejected a 20% share and as Ade points out, it should represent fans of all views fairly.
If the AFT choose to hold a pole of its entire membership on the subject, then write a letter showing the reflection of its makeup so be it. But do not be a platform for people with an agenda is quite a different matter. The AFT is being run as though Erdogan is in charge. Saying you are democratic but acting like a dictatorship.
From reading previous posts (i'm aware things may have changed) one AFT member said the letter was written because the board received 60 letters / emails of complaint against the redevelopment. As there were no emails / letters in support for it, they saw that as a 'mandate'. With the AFT membership being over 1000 they took a mandate on 6%.
6% does not constitute a mandate. By doing this, the AFT lost any further claim of legitimate representation and argument.
Poll your membership and respect the outcome, it will give you a mandate to support or oppose the development but do not be so shallow as to cower in a corner when you've realised you made a knee-jerk reaction. Even if it doesn't go the way I want, at least I can say it is what the majority want, it is a democratic organisation after all. So show me the democracy!
If the AFT choose to hold a pole of its entire membership on the subject, then write a letter showing the reflection of its makeup so be it. But do not be a platform for people with an agenda is quite a different matter. The AFT is being run as though Erdogan is in charge. Saying you are democratic but acting like a dictatorship.
From reading previous posts (i'm aware things may have changed) one AFT member said the letter was written because the board received 60 letters / emails of complaint against the redevelopment. As there were no emails / letters in support for it, they saw that as a 'mandate'. With the AFT membership being over 1000 they took a mandate on 6%.
6% does not constitute a mandate. By doing this, the AFT lost any further claim of legitimate representation and argument.
Poll your membership and respect the outcome, it will give you a mandate to support or oppose the development but do not be so shallow as to cower in a corner when you've realised you made a knee-jerk reaction. Even if it doesn't go the way I want, at least I can say it is what the majority want, it is a democratic organisation after all. So show me the democracy!
Thomas Edwards":3u8qdv26 said:
It's the big question.
If anything happened to induce JB and SH to walk away today, would you trust the Trust to run the club effectively for all supporters of the club?
N
NorfolkGreen
Guest
jimsing":20esc70j said:
So you're allowed to say your cancelling but someone can't say they are renewing without being insulted?
If the Trust got 60 emails objecting and none supporting them that is a more overwhelming outcome than PCC have received isn't it?
Everyone saying the Trust doesn't act for them, how many have contacted them to say you support the planning application? 60 out of a 100 is pretty poor but considerably more than those supporting, assuming those figures are correct and there appears no reason to disbelieve them.
The whole club is in a bit of a mess at the moment, we need all opinions to be heard, questions asked, resolutions identified and a singularly of purpose to be agreed to take us forward.
Except that the council got more statements for the proposal than against it but why let facts get in the way.
NorfolkGreen":24iiy7s3 said:
Why is that NG ?
I see the club being run prudently (perhaps too prudently for some).
I see the possibility of much needed investment in the facilities.
I see a team/ club that has just won promotion.
I see a team that is lacking confidence and direction, but is capable of maintaining our league status.
And barring one personal issue, a load of unsubstantiated rumours of disquiet.
You may be more in the know, but that synopsis doesn't seem so bad to me.
Ade the green":3t2egg4e said:
No, absolutely not. It's a scary thought as it happens.
IJN":3t2egg4e said:
I agree. Though (in my humble opinion) their purpose changed shortly after the takeover.
My thoughts; right or wrong, I'm sure many will disagree, are that the Trust should be there if and when they are needed.
I feel at the moment they want to be there all of the time, in a "we are always right" way. A bit like having a new starter at work telling the boss how to do his job.
Perhaps if the OP had been looking at PASOTI over the last few months he would know that most posters think the Herald is at best a comic and at worst a rag. Certainly the standard of journalism is pretty dire. Even the thought that PASOTI could influence the Herald is just laughable especially as PASOTI only exists on the net and is just a forum facilitating an exchange of views. From what I have seen there have been a good number of people expressing objections to the proposal on this forum - at least as many as the AFT which as we know represents all Argyle fans despite not knowing what they think
NorfolkGreen":1011maqi said:
There's two different aspects to what you talk about.
I am not a member of the trust and as such the thought to contact them didn't enter my head. As has been said this wouldn't have mattered as not being a member I am person non gratis. However , if I were a member and having the chair raise a statement to the affect that my opinion has been ignored on the basis I did not send an email direct to the chair I would feel aggrieved. Still there is no evidence that any emails were sent or no evidence of when they were sent. A few has become 60 with still no recognition that another opinion was expressed.
There have been a few AFT members that have stated they didn't even know who to communicate with so the whole things smacks of cronyism and singlemindedness of the AFT board.
