This is a copy of my response sent to David Wheeler, following the meetings re the GAS Board.
GAS Board or Trust Scrutiny plus Supporters' Umbrella Group?
Having attended the two meetings of the group discussing setting up the GAS Board (GASB), I increasingly feel that there is a need to divide representation of supporters with the club into two: the strategic and the operational. I set out here why I think this is the case.
What has been plain in the two GASB discussions is that:
1. During these meetings there has been an inability to derive agreement on the objectives of the GASB and, to be honest, a lack of excitement around the issue (perhaps because it has been so difficult to nail down its purpose).
2. Where people have put objectives for the GASB forward these have revolved around giving supporters a voice within the club, and achieving scrutiny of the Board’s actions in running the club.
These are both vital and to be welcomed but feel that the following points are relevant:
1. What is to be scrutinised – the overall direction of the club as being run by the Directors, or the day to day matters like pricing, accessibility, concessions, football matters (where appropriate)? Well, both probably.
2. If this (both) is the case then I feel there is a need for two separate mechanisms:
a. An independent, formalised oversight of strategic issues surrounding PAFC’s continued existence and overall business strategy. This is precisely what the Argyle Fans’ Trust was set up to do and its unique independence protects it from interference. I believe that the Trust should seek meetings with James Brent and the rest of the Board to establish the modus operandi of such a scrutiny arrangement, including boundaries and confidentiality issues, alongside an enthusiastic take-up of the 20% share offer that James has made.
b. An umbrella group representing supporters of all persuasions (I am far from persuaded of the mythical 20,000 that David Wheeler talks about – some or many of them will come/return according to our league position and the club’s commercial/marketing effectiveness – they can join a supporters’ group/s as they wish then). This umbrella group could meet a few times a year to discuss operational issues. I don’t believe the Trust should have any role in this (of course Trust members could be part of it e.g. via Senior Greens or the Plymouth Supporters Club). This umbrella group instead should a combination of elected and representative (drawn from existing groups, maybe with one or two places reserved for those who don’t want to be part of / represented by, these groups who would be elected directly).
In conclusion, James Brent’s offer of consultation with supporters is enormously welcome; it is an opportunity that should not be missed and David Wheeler’s facilitation is gratefully acknowledged. But I think that splitting it in the way I am suggesting would result in the balance between independent scrutiny and friendly liaison, and would cover short and longer term objectives, the most important of which is to ensure that if (when) a less benevolent owner than James steps into the HP Boardroom, we are as well positioned as possible to look after our destiny.
Peter Ryan, 3rd March 2012
GAS Board or Trust Scrutiny plus Supporters' Umbrella Group?
Having attended the two meetings of the group discussing setting up the GAS Board (GASB), I increasingly feel that there is a need to divide representation of supporters with the club into two: the strategic and the operational. I set out here why I think this is the case.
What has been plain in the two GASB discussions is that:
1. During these meetings there has been an inability to derive agreement on the objectives of the GASB and, to be honest, a lack of excitement around the issue (perhaps because it has been so difficult to nail down its purpose).
2. Where people have put objectives for the GASB forward these have revolved around giving supporters a voice within the club, and achieving scrutiny of the Board’s actions in running the club.
These are both vital and to be welcomed but feel that the following points are relevant:
1. What is to be scrutinised – the overall direction of the club as being run by the Directors, or the day to day matters like pricing, accessibility, concessions, football matters (where appropriate)? Well, both probably.
2. If this (both) is the case then I feel there is a need for two separate mechanisms:
a. An independent, formalised oversight of strategic issues surrounding PAFC’s continued existence and overall business strategy. This is precisely what the Argyle Fans’ Trust was set up to do and its unique independence protects it from interference. I believe that the Trust should seek meetings with James Brent and the rest of the Board to establish the modus operandi of such a scrutiny arrangement, including boundaries and confidentiality issues, alongside an enthusiastic take-up of the 20% share offer that James has made.
b. An umbrella group representing supporters of all persuasions (I am far from persuaded of the mythical 20,000 that David Wheeler talks about – some or many of them will come/return according to our league position and the club’s commercial/marketing effectiveness – they can join a supporters’ group/s as they wish then). This umbrella group could meet a few times a year to discuss operational issues. I don’t believe the Trust should have any role in this (of course Trust members could be part of it e.g. via Senior Greens or the Plymouth Supporters Club). This umbrella group instead should a combination of elected and representative (drawn from existing groups, maybe with one or two places reserved for those who don’t want to be part of / represented by, these groups who would be elected directly).
In conclusion, James Brent’s offer of consultation with supporters is enormously welcome; it is an opportunity that should not be missed and David Wheeler’s facilitation is gratefully acknowledged. But I think that splitting it in the way I am suggesting would result in the balance between independent scrutiny and friendly liaison, and would cover short and longer term objectives, the most important of which is to ensure that if (when) a less benevolent owner than James steps into the HP Boardroom, we are as well positioned as possible to look after our destiny.
Peter Ryan, 3rd March 2012
