-
Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter
AFT Chair's Update Club Statement
- Thread starter Josh Pope
- Start date
The Asset of Community Value status ensures the following...
1) Removal of permitted development rights for change of use and demolition of public houses: owners seeking to change a pub's planning use class or to demolish it must allow its users (for example, a pub's regular drinkers) to comment.
2) Material planning consideration: ACV status is a material consideration in a planning application and can be used by the Planning Inspectorate as a factor in refusing planning permission for change of use or demolition.
3)Community right to bid: this allows an ACV to be purchased by a group representing its users or the local community.
4)Compulsory purchase rights: an ACV-registered building can be compulsorily purchased by the local authority or council "if the asset is under threat of long-term loss to the community".
Which bit is JB threatened by? Presumably number 2) if he wishes to turn the club shop or part of the ground into, say, a hotel?
1) Removal of permitted development rights for change of use and demolition of public houses: owners seeking to change a pub's planning use class or to demolish it must allow its users (for example, a pub's regular drinkers) to comment.
2) Material planning consideration: ACV status is a material consideration in a planning application and can be used by the Planning Inspectorate as a factor in refusing planning permission for change of use or demolition.
3)Community right to bid: this allows an ACV to be purchased by a group representing its users or the local community.
4)Compulsory purchase rights: an ACV-registered building can be compulsorily purchased by the local authority or council "if the asset is under threat of long-term loss to the community".
Which bit is JB threatened by? Presumably number 2) if he wishes to turn the club shop or part of the ground into, say, a hotel?
And surely Mr. Brent does not like the AFT ‘holding the club to account’ isn't a quote? That would be mighty odd, as this appears to be the main function of any fan's trust or supporter's group.
The club have a lot of questions to answer - seems like they have abandoned the 'friend' idea of 'critical friend'.
Answer that then Brent...
No doubt his cheerleaders will be reminding us how great he is before too long
No doubt his cheerleaders will be reminding us how great he is before too long
Biggs":2y8kd6aw said:
It may be the Trust's function, but the owner doesn't have to like it.
I think this has been coming for a long time. JB has tolerated the Trust's meetings with Starnes (and the efforts of the PASB before it), as a gesture of co-operation, provided boundaries are not crossed. Toilets, buses etc have been acceptable topics of conversation, but scrutiny of finance and property deals have been out of bounds. Now he appears to be emphasising that, on the issues important to him, he won't put up with the interference of fans. Sanctions like the removal of the AFT's contribution to the programme are imposed to show who is the boss.
From a business point of view, I have some sympathy for JB. To be honest, if I was in in his position I would do exactly the same - I wouldn't want a mob of "customers" studying my every move, and I certainly wouldn't stand for being told what to do. As a fan, whilst I'm not surprised at this, it is worrying. With all the issues connected to ground ownership on the horizon, it is important to us to know what is going on. Would I be being very cynical to suggest that a breakdown of communications with the AFT (and therefore the fans), might be very convenient for JB at the moment? If there is no dialogue, then there's little pressure to tell us anything. JB's (rather naive) promise of transparency at the time of his arrival seems a lifetime ago.
As for the AFT, I fail to see how they are they are going to achieve their stated aims whilst "withdrawing from any further dialogue with the Board of PAFC". How do you lobby someone from a stance of "I'm not talking to you"? I appreciate that the AFT are in a difficult situation, but disagree with them breaking off communication - not least because I think JB might be delighted if they kept quiet for a few months.
This looks to be an act of petty thinking from "Our Saviour". If he can't get his way then he lashes out. Way to go JB - and I do mean GO. We will be paying rent to our saviour - nice thought.
Brent's a xxxxxx and needs to go. Hallett needs to respond to this too, were his words of transparency and supporter engagement just as hollow as the saviour's?
---------------------------------------
Libelous comment removed. Criticise and debate but please no personal insults or libelous comments. Thanks.
Admin.
---------------------------------------
Libelous comment removed. Criticise and debate but please no personal insults or libelous comments. Thanks.
Admin.
D
daniel m
Guest
cheshiregreen":1p748tka said:This thread should be good for about 30 pages I think.
Hopefully the thread will be allowed to stay.
I guess the AFT are back from their summer holidays then!
The open meeting should be interesting and lively.
Shame I'm at a festival.
The open meeting should be interesting and lively.
Shame I'm at a festival.
SwimWithTheTide":38iijv07 said:
Edited to remove response, because what's the point? Fwiw, I don't want it construed that the removed word was abusive or sweary. Just feel that Brent is racking up a bucket load of broken promises, particularly around supporter engagement.
Well I for one am glad the Trust has grown itself a purpose instead of the usual Dibley parish council feel of its minutes.
James Brent seems determined to get the freehold, and now seems aghast that the fans want an input into the decision making on the future of the ground.
It is important for any club to have fans representatives that put representing the fans independently before pleasing the emperor in charge, whoever he may be. Good on the Trust in that regard.
I feel James Brent would be well advised that the club belongs all of us supporters, and not just himself, Wrathall and Hallett. Learn to deal with the Trust; however frustrating you may find them, they are the largest expression of a voice you will find in the Argyle fan base. And listening to the fans is an important process. I personally thought Mr Brent got it badly wrong the last time he tried to impose his idea of a grandstand on the club without consulting or listening to the supporters, and I was glad the whole thing failed to materialise. It just wasn't big or good enough in my view, and many others, whose views were not lelven properly listened to in the first instance.
Engage with the supporters properly Mr Brent and you may find that you get more on board. Denying fans a voice and having no concern for their views does not create a positive image, and judging by other forums Brent has created a considerable group of fierce critics as it is.
James Brent seems determined to get the freehold, and now seems aghast that the fans want an input into the decision making on the future of the ground.
It is important for any club to have fans representatives that put representing the fans independently before pleasing the emperor in charge, whoever he may be. Good on the Trust in that regard.
I feel James Brent would be well advised that the club belongs all of us supporters, and not just himself, Wrathall and Hallett. Learn to deal with the Trust; however frustrating you may find them, they are the largest expression of a voice you will find in the Argyle fan base. And listening to the fans is an important process. I personally thought Mr Brent got it badly wrong the last time he tried to impose his idea of a grandstand on the club without consulting or listening to the supporters, and I was glad the whole thing failed to materialise. It just wasn't big or good enough in my view, and many others, whose views were not lelven properly listened to in the first instance.
Engage with the supporters properly Mr Brent and you may find that you get more on board. Denying fans a voice and having no concern for their views does not create a positive image, and judging by other forums Brent has created a considerable group of fierce critics as it is.