My withdrawal from the election

[Mark Colling]

I've said it before but I'll say it again; if two others joined John in withdrawing and the three of them took up the Trust spots on the PASB, we'd have an INTERIM board that could get on with sorting out many of the issues that people are complaining have been handled so badly; principally the scope and the process.

At least that way, we'd have 12 people who want to do it getting on with it rather than the current situation which feels like no-one driving it forward. Call me a cynic but withdrawing from the process and trying to get it halted smells like an attempt to sink the PASB because I refuse to see it gaining any momentum if it is halted now.

 

[David Fisher]

This whole process seems to be completely leaderless at the moment.

The club directors are quite properly keeping their distance to preserve the "independence" of the PASB.

Over the past nine months or so most of the information coming out of Home Park has been via Chris Webb and I guess he's been lumbered with most / all of the organising.

The silence from HP / Chris over the past week has been deafening and if anything is to salvaged from this shambles we need someone in authority to stick their head above the parapet & say something.

 

[The Doctor]

The key question for me is whether the ERS knew that children were on the mailing list and then approved of their involvement - or not.

If not, then that was a club decision.

If so, then it would be interesting to know the thought process which led to club officials deciding that all children - as young as five, or as old as 16, would be able to make a discerning choice in this election.

I doubt if it was a real decision or any kind of meaningful "thought process" at all. I think it is most likely that no-one actually gave any thought to the make-up of the members distribution list that was passed to the ERS. They just passed the list on because that was the list of club members and club members are the ones entitled to vote. Surely this is by far the most likely scenario that would bring us to the current position.

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

My tuppence:

Firstly, I welcome the actions of the Trust in pressing the club to take action. Even though some including me have expressed doubts about the PASB in terms of what it will be allowed to achieve, the Trust has shown a commitment to making it the best that it can be. I know that withdrawal from the election was not a decision that would have been taken lightly.

There are two reputational risks here: the first is that there's now a vacuum where little seems to be happening. The second is that in times of risk it's typical that too much energy is spent on debating how we got here.

What matters is a solution.

In my view the lack of momentum behind the PASB from 'ordinary' (and I don't use the term at all pejoratively) is that they have no idea what they are voting for.

To allay those fears, the club needs to come out and set out the boundaries of powers that the PASB should have. In my view, Supporters Direct has set out an extremely effective template for that at http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/sd/Licensing_Proposal_A.pdf

The PASB should be mandated to consider:

- Information provided by the club including detailed annual accounts and directorships (as supplied to regulator).

- Regular (at least twice yearly) meeting with senior club executives.

- Information on club finances, business plans and governance drawn from information provided to regulator.

- Requirement for supporter agreement for: i) Sale of ground; ii) Debt beyond specified limits; iii) Relocation; iv) Change of name (and I would add sponsorship/renaming of ground).

It is, of course, equally possible that the Trust could take on these functions, as SD suggests through "issuing a “golden share” in a form approved by the regulator", but I accept that for various reasons in the short term that does not look feasible.

This is not a criticism of the club or James Brent. I am confident that the actions James, Peter Jones and co have taken are the ones to set us on the right path. I am also as sure as I can be that they are cut from a different cloth to the previous regime. But, as the Trust Board told James when it met formally with him, the unavoidable outcome of his takeover is that he has to carry the baggage of suspicion, doubt and fear that is a direct result of us being dicked about over the last 5 years. So confidence and being sure isn't enough.

The next 10 years in football will be about transparency, openness and engagement. It will be an era in which deeds will matter more than words, and I believe there are some very simple short term steps that the club can and should take to be the pathfinder club that James indicated he wants us to be when he mentioned the 'German model'. The risk is that at this distance, we are nowhere near that point.

 

[Miles Bidgood]

As I stated in a previous thread I will abide by whatever the majority of the candidates in this election decide is the correct thing to do.....however I do feel that we shouldn't jump...... First question is this do the people reading this thread believe there is benefit in the PASB and do we want it ? if your answer to this is yes we must consider how best achieve this asap.

I would like a meeting of all of the candidates in this election my suggestion would be that those elected by this process even if you feel it flawed would form a temporary board with a mandate to hold a fresh election to be completed within say 3 months......another steering group if you like but this time nobody would be excluded from these talks which certainly happened first time around.

As far as children getting a vote I can't decide if this is a show stopper and this is why.

My biggest concern over the election is the exclusion of Pay on the Day and even Arm Chair supporters I believe that anyone who considers themselves to be an Argyle Supporter should have had the right to vote in this election...how that would be achieved is another question. There are those that believe to have the right to vote you need to have a stake in the club which is another view. If you look at this logically if the election included anyone who wished to vote say for instance via a coupon in the local press and the members where sent a ballot paper this would mean that club members got 2 votes ie sent ballot paper and press. This is what happens in many elections ie a member of a political party will get two votes when electing a leader for instance one for being a member and one that everyone is entitled to. My point is this we all feel children should be involved in the club so by sending papers to them what is actually happening is a stake holder is getting two votes because obviously Mum or Dad will be voting for those children (those too young to make an informed decision)....not necessarily in all cases my 16 year old would make his own mind up. The problem here is only stake holders get a vote...if the election had included everyone you could in fact say that the the stakeholders where getting 2 votes in many cases ie the kids vote and it could be argued that the fact that they had committed to the club in the form of membership entitled them to that perk.

I understand this is a simplistic view and everyone wants the election to be correct and above board but to my mind this should have been sorted by the steering committee and needed proper discussion and thought process.

We need a database of all supporters for a start not just club members.. this is what needs to be worked on let an interim PASB work on this is my belief...we could even work on a system where everyone can vote but additional votes would be given for each recognised group ie a vote for a supporter, a vote for a trust member, a vote for members and so on so if you where a Trust member,season ticket holder you would in fact be eligible to cast three votes. This would involve everybody and would give those that committed a greater say...

Just food for thought ........lets get this thing up and running.

 

[Mark Colling]

As I stated in a previous thread I will abide by whatever the majority of the candidates in this election decide is the correct thing to do.....however I do feel that we shouldn't jump...... First question is this do the people reading this thread believe there is benefit in the PASB and do we want it ? if your answer to this is yes we must consider how best achieve this asap.

I would like a meeting of all of the candidates in this election my suggestion would be that those elected by this process even if you feel it flawed would form a temporary board with a mandate to hold a fresh election to be completed within say 3 months......another steering group if you like but this time nobody would be excluded from these talks which certainly happened first time around.

...

Just food for thought ........lets get this thing up and running.

I agree, especially the bit in bold; as Gareth posted "too much energy is spent on debating how we got here. What matters is a solution."

 

[David Fisher]

I agree that we need to get this thing up and running and think the PASB should go ahead on a temporary basis with the six supporters' groups delegates and the remaining 8 or 9 individual candidates.

They should then be given say 3 months to sort out a constitution, sort out what their "mission" is and hold a properly organised election in which the individual candidates could stand together with any other interested supporters be they members, POTD or whatever.

The current election should be cancelled because of the sending of voting papers to children. After excluding all POTDs from the process I would say it's impossible to make any sort of case for the inclusion of some children just because they happen to be club members.

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

As I stated in a previous thread I will abide by whatever the majority of the candidates in this election decide is the correct thing to do.....however I do feel that we shouldn't jump...... First question is this do the people reading this thread believe there is benefit in the PASB and do we want it ? if your answer to this is yes we must consider how best achieve this asap.

I would like a meeting of all of the candidates in this election my suggestion would be that those elected by this process even if you feel it flawed would form a temporary board with a mandate to hold a fresh election to be completed within say 3 months......another steering group if you like but this time nobody would be excluded from these talks which certainly happened first time around.

...

Just food for thought ........lets get this thing up and running.

I agree, especially the bit in bold; as Gareth posted "too much energy is spent on debating how we got here. What matters is a solution."

At the risk of that part of what I wrote being taken out of context, my 'solution' involves ensuring that people who vote for candidates know not only who the candidates are but what (even if only in outline) they'll be empowered to consider when they're elected.

 

[Tim Chown]

The Trust has sent a proposal to the club to get a model for supporter governance moving forward again.

We won't comment on that until the club has had a chance to respond.

 

[Mark Colling]

As I stated in a previous thread I will abide by whatever the majority of the candidates in this election decide is the correct thing to do.....however I do feel that we shouldn't jump...... First question is this do the people reading this thread believe there is benefit in the PASB and do we want it ? if your answer to this is yes we must consider how best achieve this asap.

I would like a meeting of all of the candidates in this election my suggestion would be that those elected by this process even if you feel it flawed would form a temporary board with a mandate to hold a fresh election to be completed within say 3 months......another steering group if you like but this time nobody would be excluded from these talks which certainly happened first time around.

...

Just food for thought ........lets get this thing up and running.

I agree, especially the bit in bold; as Gareth posted "too much energy is spent on debating how we got here. What matters is a solution."

At the risk of that part of what I wrote being taken out of context, my 'solution' involves ensuring that people who vote for candidates know not only who the candidates are but what (even if only in outline) they'll be empowered to consider when they're elected.

So to summarise your solution in entirely my own words "let's stop the process dead and leave it to flounder rather than let the candidates and supportes clubs reps (i.e. the ones who actually want this to work) to get together and try and make it work". The German model you refer to is exactly where I think we should be aiming but to get there you need somebody to drive it; without an Interim PASB now, there will be no PASB.

 

[David Fisher]

As I stated in a previous thread I will abide by whatever the majority of the candidates in this election decide is the correct thing to do.....however I do feel that we shouldn't jump...... First question is this do the people reading this thread believe there is benefit in the PASB and do we want it ? if your answer to this is yes we must consider how best achieve this asap.

I would like a meeting of all of the candidates in this election my suggestion would be that those elected by this process even if you feel it flawed would form a temporary board with a mandate to hold a fresh election to be completed within say 3 months......another steering group if you like but this time nobody would be excluded from these talks which certainly happened first time around.

...

Just food for thought ........lets get this thing up and running.

I agree, especially the bit in bold; as Gareth posted "too much energy is spent on debating how we got here. What matters is a solution."

At the risk of that part of what I wrote being taken out of context, my 'solution' involves ensuring that people who vote for candidates know not only who the candidates are but what (even if only in outline) they'll be empowered to consider when they're elected.

The draft "mission statement" is set out in Prof Wheeler's report from April (yes April).

This is to be ratified or amended by the first meeting of the Supporters’ Board in Oct 2012.

Unfortunately the election process has been so drawn out that it's unlikely that the first meeting will happen this month.

 

[David Fisher]

My tuppence:

Firstly, I welcome the actions of the Trust in pressing the club to take action. Even though some including me have expressed doubts about the PASB in terms of what it will be allowed to achieve, the Trust has shown a commitment to making it the best that it can be. I know that withdrawal from the election was not a decision that would have been taken lightly.

There are two reputational risks here: the first is that there's now a vacuum where little seems to be happening. The second is that in times of risk it's typical that too much energy is spent on debating how we got here.

What matters is a solution.

In my view the lack of momentum behind the PASB from 'ordinary' (and I don't use the term at all pejoratively) is that they have no idea what they are voting for.

To allay those fears, the club needs to come out and set out the boundaries of powers that the PASB should have. In my view, Supporters Direct has set out an extremely effective template for that at http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/sd/Licensing_Proposal_A.pdf

The PASB should be mandated to consider:

- Information provided by the club including detailed annual accounts and directorships (as supplied to regulator).

- Regular (at least twice yearly) meeting with senior club executives.

- Information on club finances, business plans and governance drawn from information provided to regulator.

- Requirement for supporter agreement for: i) Sale of ground; ii) Debt beyond specified limits; iii) Relocation; iv) Change of name (and I would add sponsorship/renaming of ground).

It is, of course, equally possible that the Trust could take on these functions, as SD suggests through "issuing a “golden share” in a form approved by the regulator", but I accept that for various reasons in the short term that does not look feasible.

This is not a criticism of the club or James Brent. I am confident that the actions James, Peter Jones and co have taken are the ones to set us on the right path. I am also as sure as I can be that they are cut from a different cloth to the previous regime. But, as the Trust Board told James when it met formally with him, the unavoidable outcome of his takeover is that he has to carry the baggage of suspicion, doubt and fear that is a direct result of us being dicked about over the last 5 years. So confidence and being sure isn't enough.

The next 10 years in football will be about transparency, openness and engagement. It will be an era in which deeds will matter more than words, and I believe there are some very simple short term steps that the club can and should take to be the pathfinder club that James indicated he wants us to be when he mentioned the 'German model'. The risk is that at this distance, we are nowhere near that point.

Gareth - One small point, the club no longer owns the ground (or the 'car park' for that matter).

 

[Tim Chown]

So to summarise your solution in entirely my own words "let's stop the process dead and leave it to flounder rather than let the candidates and supportes clubs reps (i.e. the ones who actually want this to work) to get together and try and make it work". The German model you refer to is exactly where I think we should be aiming but to get there you need somebody to drive it; without an Interim PASB now, there will be no PASB.

The Trust's proposal addresses that.

Personally, I would be surprised to see the German model applied at HP in the near future, given the Supervisory Board could then appoint (and fire) the club's executive board. The Supporters Direct model is more realistic, and is one part of governance/licensing proposals that are already being discussed in Westminster.

Tim

 

[Lee Jameson]

If it's any use, this is the document I drew up for consideration when all this got mooted by Tony Campbell way back in 2009.

The structures and processes seen below are mostly lifted from successful constitutional protocols currently in place at a number of other League clubs.

PS - PASTMA was just a simplistic term to cover all recognised PAFC membership holders, however they would be defined. Still an issue to this day...


PAFC Supporter Representatives – Organising Principles

Purpose and Objectives

To represent the Plymouth Argyle Season Ticket Member Association (PASTMA) and other recognised regional Supporters Branches at Board level.

To assist Plymouth Argyle FC (PAFC) in developing and maintaining a close relationship with its supporters and improving communications on matters relating to club policy and strategy.

To provide a direct channel to allow constructive observations, comments and suggestions to be presented at Board level.

Role Description and Responsibilities

Two persons will be appointed to serve as PAFC Supporter Representatives (SR’s) for a period of 12 months, from 1 July to 30 June each year.

Each SR must be a current Season Ticket holder, above 18 years of age and be a “fit and proper person” according to the definitions provided by the English Premier League and by the Companies Act.

No former or current employee or director of PAFC may be eligible for the role of PAFC SR.

The specific responsibility of an SR will be for effective two way communication between PAFC and PASTMA members, as well as all other members of the fanbase.

The SR will have the rights and responsibilities of a non-executive Board member of Plymouth Argyle FC, with full access to all relevant information and shared accountability for Board decisions.

The SR will also adhere to the highest levels of personal and business confidentiality required in relation to details of financial matters, details of contracts and other commercial agreements that they may be party to whilst in their role. SR’s will not vote in any matters specifically relating to financial, commercial or contractual issues.

SR’s will be expected to communicate at all levels with all stakeholders on a frequent basis. They will also be expected to liaise closely with the media and to use all available channels to garner opinions and report on progress intelligibly with all media channels.

SR’s will focus their attention on matters relating to the experience of the ordinary fan – ticket prices, merchandising, stewarding, catering, pre-match entertainment, access issues and so on, but will also be encouraged to present opinions and suggestions related to other issues.

SR’s will not receive any financial payments, match tickets or other rewards for their time or presence at Board meetings, except for reasonable and itemised travel expenses, where deemed necessary and agreed in advance.

Nomination and Electoral Process

PASTMA Representative

One PAFC SR will be directly elected from PASTMA, following a formal nomination, seconding and electoral process that will be conducted independently by PASTMA.

This process will commence in March with a call for nominations and secondings in the matchday programmes and in the local media. Nominees will be expected to produce a 100 word manifesto, followed by an interview process.

There will then follow a polling process that will be paper-based only, with forms produced in the April matchday programmes and in the local media. The polling form will still allow for a "write in" candidate.

The polling forms will be posted to a PO Box address, which will then be opened, counted and tallied under the supervision of one PAFC employee, one member of PASTMA and one member of the local media.

The process will be concluded by the end of May, to allow the previous incumbent a period of time to assist their replacement in familiarisation with the role.

The runner-up to the elected person will act as a Deputy, should the elected person be unable to attend a meeting.

It is recommended, though not necessary, that the PASTMA representative live within thirty miles of Plymouth, in order to ensure that the person elected to the role is able to gauge local opinion on an ongoing basis.

Regional Supporters Branch Representative

The other PAFC SR will be selected at random from within a group of nominated individuals drawn from the recognised Regional Supporters Branches (Cornwall, Plymouth, North Devon, Avon, London, Northern, Midlands and the Disabled Supporters Association).

Each of the recognised Regional Supporters Branches will be responsible for organising their own nomination and electoral process. The random selection of one individual from a potential list of eight persons will be carried out under the supervision of one PAFC employee, one member of PASTMA and one member of the local media.

PAFC SR’s may not stand for consecutive terms, but can stand again after a two year interval, should they wish to do so.

Advisory Committee

All nominees from the PASTMA electoral process who receive more than 5% of the vote will join all non-elected Regional Supporter Branch nominees in forming an ad hoc Advisory Committee.

They will then be responsible for requesting and collating opinions and contributions from the fanbase at large, to be presented by the selected SR’s at Board level. This will be a “virtual” committee, with meetings not being required and contributions presented by email or by letter.

PAFC SR’s will be expected to attend all Board meetings, or in the event of difficulty, to provide a minimum of fourteen days notice in writing to PAFC, to allow sufficient time for their deputy to arrange attendance in their place.

Non-attendance at two Board meetings within the 12 month period of service will immediately be followed by de-selection as SR, to be replaced by the Deputy in the case of the PASTMA representative, or by one of the Regional Supporter Branch nominees in the case of the Regional Supporter Branch representative.

PMSL-Fit and proper person. I don't think this new board should use any ideas from that of the old regime!

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

So to summarise your solution in entirely my own words "let's stop the process dead and leave it to flounder rather than let the candidates and supportes clubs reps (i.e. the ones who actually want this to work) to get together and try and make it work". The German model you refer to is exactly where I think we should be aiming but to get there you need somebody to drive it; without an Interim PASB now, there will be no PASB.

That's a fairly unrepresentative summary of the point I was making, but it's fine if you choose to draw those conclusions.

I'd argue that one major reason for lack of any meaningful interest in the PASB is that nobody (not least the candidates for election) has any clue about what that body will be "allowed" to do. An indication from the club of the broad limits of the PASB's powers (i.e. will it be presented with the sort of information/decisions I outlined above and act as check and balance to Board decisions) would give some parameters to what the PASB can achieve, provide issues for candidates to debate (some may think what the club is offering doesn't go far enough and may want to campaign to press, in time, for further PASB responsibilities) and could make the concept of the PASB 'real' in fans' minds.

The view that we should just let an interim Board start that process has merit. I accept that. Of those candidates I've spoken to whose opinions I've read, I do have confidence in the majority of them that they can work together to set a positive context for what the PASB does. My argument is that the club needs to step up and show that they recognise that meaningful supporter engagement is a two way process. Setting some broad responsibilities for the PASB priovides the context for fans to make an informed choice about direction of travel.

The German model is so far away from what's on the table at the moment that it's laughable to present the two together.