Changes in board room

[stewthenoo]

Crucial question regarding the vacancies.

Will the new Directors be required to put money into the Club, a la Tony Wrathall, or will they be required for their expertise only, a la Peter Jones?

I suppose it will be the latter, as the existing directors would not want their share of the Club diluted, so we cannot expect new money to be injected into the Club this time.

I do recall that NOT to be the case in the past, whereby new directors would be required to put money into the Club. I suppose new shares would have been created for them, thereby watering down the value of the shares remaining in the hands of the other directors, which would have provided new money into the Club. The alternative would have been for the directors to sell part of their shares, in which case the directors would receive the money and the Club would be no better off. The boardroom would have increased without any financial benefit to the Club.

I cannot see Brent, Wrathall or Hallett wanting to sell any shares, so I guess any new directors would be brought on board for their expertise only.

They seem to have set a bar that in general directors "should" only serve three years. This is probably more in line with JBs plan and we will see once SH becomes more and more influential.

Looking at the three year term, it brings us into the schedule of the Mayflower 400 celebrations so I'd hazard someone with event experience or someone with an "in" with the FA might be helpful.

The other thing that it could be is the phasing out of JBs influence towit a handover of the controlling power at HP.

Right, so we can expect to see Karen Brady on the board soon. :thumbup:

 

[stewthenoo]

Maybe a position of Equality and Diversity Officer or similar is needed, reporting to the Board of Directors.

Anyone in mind?

 

[Ade the green]

Crucial question regarding the vacancies.

Will the new Directors be required to put money into the Club, a la Tony Wrathall, or will they be required for their expertise only, a la Peter Jones?

I suppose it will be the latter, as the existing directors would not want their share of the Club diluted, so we cannot expect new money to be injected into the Club this time.

I do recall that NOT to be the case in the past, whereby new directors would be required to put money into the Club. I suppose new shares would have been created for them, thereby watering down the value of the shares remaining in the hands of the other directors, which would have provided new money into the Club. The alternative would have been for the directors to sell part of their shares, in which case the directors would receive the money and the Club would be no better off. The boardroom would have increased without any financial benefit to the Club.

I cannot see Brent, Wrathall or Hallett wanting to sell any shares, so I guess any new directors would be brought on board for their expertise only.

They seem to have set a bar that in general directors "should" only serve three years. This is probably more in line with JBs plan and we will see once SH becomes more and more influential.

Looking at the three year term, it brings us into the schedule of the Mayflower 400 celebrations so I'd hazard someone with event experience or someone with an "in" with the FA might be helpful.

The other thing that it could be is the phasing out of JBs influence towit a handover of the controlling power at HP.

Right, so we can expect to see Karen Brady on the board soon. :thumbup:

We could do worse than someone of her ilk. Which is quite strange to be talking about her as a role model for women's opportunities in football seeing as her employers were pornographers.

 

[Ade the green]

Maybe a position of Equality and Diversity Officer or similar is needed, reporting to the Board of Directors.

Anyone in mind?

This would be for staff which is possibly covered already, and the "Respect" should cover the behaviour or punishment of fans.

 

[lyndhurst green]

Ade, I have read your last post a few times, but don't really understand it.

I guess you are saying that Equality and Diversity may be under the remit of an employee currently at the club; possibly, but who do they report to? And given that you previously stated that in the group of 30 or so people around you on match days there are no people of colour, that suggests there is work to be done.

As to your last point on 'Respect' and punishment of fans, I'm not sure quite what you are getting at.

 

[jerryatricjanner]

There may indeed be work to be done Lyndhurst but the most obvious explanation for the lack of ethnic minorities at Home Park is simply that 93% of the city of Plymouth and almost 99% of the rural Devon and Cornwall population is white European according to the last census.

 

[Ade the green]

Ade, I have read your last post a few times, but don't really understand it.

I guess you are saying that Equality and Diversity may be under the remit of an employee currently at the club; possibly, but who do they report to? And given that you previously stated that in the group of 30 or so people around you on match days there are no people of colour, that suggests there is work to be done.

As to your last point on 'Respect' and punishment of fans, I'm not sure quite what you are getting at.

Quite simply I was responding to the premise that JB has stated the need for two new directors and the belief that he wants more bases covered.

Simply put, the very fact that the board have made this decision shows it is progressive and that perceived minorities would be welcome. When I first objected to your post was not because I object to the reasoning, it was simply that your post suggested LGBT members should be considered for representation just because they are LGBT. Throughout your attacking me and making out I was a monster I continued to try and make you understand that people of the LGBT bracket could not be identified by looking at people the same as people of colour or women so there is no way of knowing if anyone actually qualifies.

My last post about minorities was not an opinion, it was fact that as jerryatric as said the demographic doesn't support a change of opinion. When I went to Liverpool, I was increasingly aware that their were a larger number of Asians in the Liverpool stands and it did make me wonder why the same wasn't' t in Home Park. The conclusion I made to myself was that the Asians may have been on holiday and in Liverpool the two things most likely to draw them to attend would be the cavern club and Anfield. I made this assumption based on thinking the ratio of Asian's in each population would likely be similar. It did make me wonder why people of certain race didn't attend home park but again, that "black" people don't attend was due in my opinion to them just not being a larger proportion of the population in this part of the country.

And finally, to sum up. I have no problem with anyone of Colour, sex or sexual orientation being included both in the board and on the terraces as long as they bring something more to the board than being of colour, women or LGBT which I objected to your original point because I believed you to think that was the only quality they needed. The respect has ways to ban fans if their behaviour is deemed inappropriate.

 

[lyndhurst green]

Thanks for your reply Ade. Firstly, I don't believe I 'attacked' you, as far as I was concerned it was lively debate. I am sorry if I caused offence, this was not my intention.

I agree with many of the points in your last post. We fundamentally disagree on the point around LGBT representation; I don't quite understand your arguments and you don't understand mine. And that is fine.

Yes, JB has made the right noises so far regards these vacancies and I would hate for this to be tokenism. I await further details with interest.

In the meantime, as always, COYG.

 

[briangreen]

If I ran Argyle, we'd dump green, we'd lose the name 'Plymouth' and call it 'Argyle' in due deference to our Cornish cousins and I'd put a full size Smeaton's Tower where Bobby's Garden is.

There, how's that for a manifesto?

Yup, I'd vote for that

 

[Quintrell Green]

Crucial question regarding the vacancies.

Will the new Directors be required to put money into the Club, a la Tony Wrathall, or will they be required for their expertise only, a la Peter Jones?

I suppose it will be the latter, as the existing directors would not want their share of the Club diluted, so we cannot expect new money to be injected into the Club this time.

I do recall that NOT to be the case in the past, whereby new directors would be required to put money into the Club. I suppose new shares would have been created for them, thereby watering down the value of the shares remaining in the hands of the other directors, which would have provided new money into the Club. The alternative would have been for the directors to sell part of their shares, in which case the directors would receive the money and the Club would be no better off. The boardroom would have increased without any financial benefit to the Club.

I cannot see Brent, Wrathall or Hallett wanting to sell any shares, so I guess any new directors would be brought on board for their expertise only.

They seem to have set a bar that in general directors "should" only serve three years. This is probably more in line with JBs plan and we will see once SH becomes more and more influential.

Looking at the three year term, it brings us into the schedule of the Mayflower 400 celebrations so I'd hazard someone with event experience or someone with an "in" with the FA might be helpful.

The other thing that it could be is the phasing out of JBs influence towit a handover of the controlling power at HP.

Right, so we can expect to see Karen Brady on the board soon. :thumbup:

We could do worse than someone of her ilk. Which is quite strange to be talking about her as a role model for women's opportunities in football seeing as her employers were pornographers.

How about Angela Rippon as a female Director. She might not be terribly knowledgeable about football, but she has a Plymouth background and huge experience in public communication from her time as both a newspaper and TV journalist. I recall fondly her half time performance last season, when she grabbed the 'mike' at Home Park in an effort to generate donations to a bucket collection for a national charity [name forgotten]. She was absolutely magic in that moment. If she can communicate equally successfully with the public in Plymouth to bring more folks through the turnstile, then she would be a great appointment. Any further thoughts?

 

[Ade the green]

Crucial question regarding the vacancies.

Will the new Directors be required to put money into the Club, a la Tony Wrathall, or will they be required for their expertise only, a la Peter Jones?

I suppose it will be the latter, as the existing directors would not want their share of the Club diluted, so we cannot expect new money to be injected into the Club this time.

I do recall that NOT to be the case in the past, whereby new directors would be required to put money into the Club. I suppose new shares would have been created for them, thereby watering down the value of the shares remaining in the hands of the other directors, which would have provided new money into the Club. The alternative would have been for the directors to sell part of their shares, in which case the directors would receive the money and the Club would be no better off. The boardroom would have increased without any financial benefit to the Club.

I cannot see Brent, Wrathall or Hallett wanting to sell any shares, so I guess any new directors would be brought on board for their expertise only.

They seem to have set a bar that in general directors "should" only serve three years. This is probably more in line with JBs plan and we will see once SH becomes more and more influential.

Looking at the three year term, it brings us into the schedule of the Mayflower 400 celebrations so I'd hazard someone with event experience or someone with an "in" with the FA might be helpful.

The other thing that it could be is the phasing out of JBs influence towit a handover of the controlling power at HP.

Right, so we can expect to see Karen Brady on the board soon. :thumbup:

We could do worse than someone of her ilk. Which is quite strange to be talking about her as a role model for women's opportunities in football seeing as her employers were pornographers.

How about Angela Rippon as a female Director. She might not be terribly knowledgeable about football, but she has a Plymouth background and huge experience in public communication from her time as both a newspaper and TV journalist. I recall fondly her half time performance last season, when she grabbed the 'mike' at Home Park in an effort to generate donations to a bucket collection for a national charity [name forgotten]. She was absolutely magic in that moment. If she can communicate equally successfully with the public in Plymouth to bring more folks through the turnstile, then she would be a great appointment. Any further thoughts?

Not a bad idea if her media contacts are up to date. With the Mayflower 400 coming up we could do with national coverage, not just for the club but for the city which seems low key at the moment.

30 years ago she could have done a fair turn at the half time entertainment as well.

 

[IJN]

Jesus Christ!! I can't think of a worse idea.

 

[Ade the green]

Jesus Christ!! I can't think of a worse idea.

Dawn French.

 

[Lousy Pint]

The last thing we need is the embarrassing rantings of a Delia Smith type.

We need to appoint people that are very good at being Football Club Directors. If they happen to be in any of the groups previously mentioned then fine. Let's not go looking for them.

 

[Adam R]

The last thing we need is the embarrassing rantings of a Delia Smith type.

We need to appoint people that are very good at being Football Club Directors. If they happen to be in any of the groups previously mentioned then fine. Let's not go looking for them.

This for me Lousy,

If not, we will enter a period of reverse-discrimination where all jobs go to minority groups because of quotas and not because of their ability to do the job. Its a shame that in this day and age this is still creating a discussion point.

As for someones comments previously on ethnic minorities in the crowd at HP, i imagine that is brought about by two things:
1. Plymouth isn't the most multi-cultural city so the % of the population doesn't support a massive ethnic minority following visible in the 7000-10000 fans at HP regularly;

Some 2011 Census data:

• 256,384 men, women and children.

• 464 people in Plymouth in a registered same-sex civil partnership.

• Of the 256,384 people in Plymouth on Census day, 67 per cent were identified or identified themselves as English, 10.1 per cent British, 0.9 per cent (2,192) Welsh only (only meaning not combined with British or any other identity) and 0.2 per cent (534) Cornish. Another 705 people define themselves as only Irish, and 541 as only Northern Irish. 2,311 say they are only Scottish.

• 238,263 Plymouth people are white British, 153 are Gypsies or Travellers, 875 are British Indian, 202 British Pakistani, 359 British Bangladeshi, 1,251 British Chinese and 1,219 British other Asian.

• 1,106 people are defined as Black British African in Plymouth with another 343 Caribbean and 229 defined as other Black. The census lists 399 people in Plymouth as Arab and 605 as 'other'.

• 148,917 people in Plymouth are Christian, 881 are Buddhist, 567 are Hindu, 168 are Jewish, 2,078 are Muslim, 89 are Sikh, 1,198 are listed as 'other religion' 84,295 have no religion and 18,191 did not state a religion.

2. Plymouth doest have much of a presence outside of the UK so we wouldn't have fans travelling to see Plymouth - unlike Man Utd etc



All stats taken from a Herald report so could be complete bo11ox.