Firstly, I must say that I do get some of the angst, irritation & opposition to the Supporter's Board.
I too, have felt disappointed at the inability - to date - to muster any enduring enthusiasm in the development & implementation of the concept. I think that this has been for a number of reasons, but I suspect that one of the biggest factors in this has been the perceived 'on the hoof' approach to the PASB.
The publication of a relatively detailed 'project' timetable would I suspect, be helpful in the delivery of the Board.
The biggest concern that I have however, is what the Board will actually 'do'.
Prof Wheeler has led us to a position whereby the PASB will decide it's role & remit once formed. Although in many ways this is a good thing, it could of course also be problematic.
As I see it, there are two high-level functions that the PASB could fulfil.
The first of these is to act as a voice of the fans, to comment with at least some consensus of the club's proposals & to 'lobby' on issues that it's members think are of relevance & importance.
The second option is to act in a more 'supervisory' capacity. To scrutinise, guide, challenge & publicly report on a semi-formal basis.
The 'Fan's voice' function could of course work well, but the overlap with the Fan's Trust is obvious & I am fearful that if this is the function adopted, the Trust's future would be made more vulnerable - indeed it already seems to be struggling with its own 'peace-time' momentum (although Saturday's agm could be a milestone moment).
The supervisory role seems to be the one initially envisaged by JB ( the other) & makes more sense to me.
Yes, it is 'at the whim' of the owner (as many point out), but so too is the Trust. If the club disengaged from the Trust, it (like the PASB) would either whither or stand on its on two feet. I suspect the former, mind.
I would like the PASB to effectively take on a formal role within the corporate governance structure of the club; of the company.
This works successfully in many areas of life & work - examples of which are school governors & non-executive chairs / directors of companies & organisations.
Although not directly involved in the day to day running of the bodies they oversee, these 'governors' or non-exec boards can require reports, accounts & performance figures on a regular basis & take action (on an escalating continuum) as agreed.
As I've previously mentioned, I'm currently working at the national level within my profession and report directly to such a Chairman - a brilliant man. In addition to his day job, he has previously ran the international news org, Reuters & is also a national trustee of St John Ambulance. His counsel & guidance is genuinely 'money can't buy' .
I have had meetings with a number of other people & am due to meet with a few more, including the current Chief Exec of the Institute for Leadership & Management (ILM).
To date, their words & advice has been quite inspirational & they have helped me markedly in thinking through exactly what role a Supporter's group could have in the corporate governance of something like a football club.
In particular, areas such as being formally enabled to require reports & how an escalating approach to corporate supervision may work, are now much clearer to me.
This is the approach that I am standing as a candidate on.
Additionally, I would like individual members of the PASB to hold portfolios, such as finance, staff management, etc. this would enable a 'round peg' approach & enhance the ability to scrutinise with rigour. I also believe that PASB members should be subject to performance management.
As it stands, due quite possibly to the need to reach out to lots of people in order that votes are secured, the PASB seems to be drifting towards the Fan's Trust model, rather than the corporate governance one that I prefer.
I would genuinely appreciate thoughts & feedback on what I've written.
Cheers,
Jon
