Herald & Pasoti

[Daz]

How about a simple poll. Question? Are you a member of AFT? Yes or No answer. Unfortunately I cannot set up a poll on this forum.

We could do metroace but it is so open to abuse i'm not sure you would be able to take it seriously.

Surely the Trust should be able to publish the accurate figures in a transparent manner. Has anyone emailed the secretary?

 

[IJN]

Everyone's scared to, he'll declare a mandate.

=====================================

If the Trust got 60 emails objecting.

Did you notice no one has said they received E mails from 60 people.

I wonder why that is?

Transparency? They love saying the word but never seem to practice it.

 

[Ade the green]

What I love is coming on PASOTI to attack PASOTI and yet the AFT is a closed book where Argyle supporters are concerned.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

If Ballboy and his mates spent all of Saturday's game talking about Pasoti, the Trust and Grandstand (who could blame them, it beats talking about what was happening on the pitch) then this site has served its purpose.

Pasoti provides a platform for supporters to air their views about the club and its goings on. The content of this site is driven by its members not by the mods or a chair, every user has an equal voice to drive or detract the general consensus. What people do in the real world in response to what is on here is their business, we are but the platform.

Ballboy, your positive feedback is welcomed albeit unintended I'm sure. This site strives to give people a voice, for people to be at the game or in the pub discussing what is posted on here shows it is coming out loud and clear. People post on here to have their views heard and you have proven we provide just that.

 

[IJN]

As importantly just have a look at the viewers of this site during match day/evening, very often over 2,000 people.

This is THE site to discuss football, which after all, is its raison d'être.

 

[NorfolkGreen]

Except that the council got more statements for the proposal than against it but why let facts get in the way.

If the alleged 60 objections v 0 support is true, I would say that was more overwhelming than the PCC received in favour v against, that's all I was saying.

 

[IJN]

No one has said 60 objections have they? They said 60 E mails, that's a lot different.

 

[NorfolkGreen]

I thought someone had said 60 emails objecting, happy to be corrected.

 

[IJN]

My point is, how many of those E mails were from different people?

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Even if it was 60-0 surely that's par for the course. Who emails the Trust asking them to support a plan already proposed by the club? People generally go out of their way to contact the relevant people to complain not agree.

The assumption is that the club will have hired the proper specialists to get this application through, support from Argyle fans through the Trust is a nice but ultimately meaningless gesture; "Argyle fans back plans to build Argyle a new stand", big whoop.

The fact that the Trust used this as an indicator of their membership's views is as utterly moronic as it was a week ago when it was announced. A few vociferous individuals send in an email, you act by polling the remainder of the less politically but still paying membership, you don't just go ahead on the views of the noisy few (very very few, 60 people maximum, seriously?).

 

[IJN]

Point of order Ollie, if they have 100 members (I wouldn't be that surprised) 60 people IS a mandate.

Remember, only 12 people turned up to the AGM (from memory).

Whatever the answer (we'll never know the number of members as it's a state held secret it seems) it's hardly representative of the 1000's of Argyle fans is it?

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Point of order Ollie, if they have 100 members (I wouldn't be that surprised) 60 people IS a mandate.

Remember, only 12 people turned up to the AGM (from memory).

Whatever the answer (we'll never know the number of members as it's a state held secret it seems) it's hardly representative of the 1000's of Argyle fans is it?

It certainly would be a mandate, I was working on the assumption the Trust was at least semi-relevant still. Thing is if their membership really is that small it makes the claims they represent "all Argyle fans" even more ludicrous.

 

[esmer]

Until the AFT board abandon their Trumpesque take on democracy and tell us otherwise all we know for a fact is that a maximum of 41 members of the fan base object to the application, and it would appear their main objections are with the Western Gate development which has no relevance to the football club.

 

[Ade the green]

Point of order Ollie, if they have 100 members (I wouldn't be that surprised) 60 people IS a mandate.

Remember, only 12 people turned up to the AGM (from memory).

Whatever the answer (we'll never know the number of members as it's a state held secret it seems) it's hardly representative of the 1000's of Argyle fans is it?

It certainly would be a mandate, I was working on the assumption the Trust was at least semi-relevant still. Thing is if their membership really is that small it makes the claims they represent "all Argyle fans" even more ludicrous.

Ian's right and we've all been fools not to agree.

If 5x more people emailed to object than turned up at the agm who are we to argue it's not politics at it's best.

 

[Quizmike]

VERY IMPORTANT

The AFT have always refused to say how many emails they got.

I have no idea where this figure of 60 has come from but it is not the number of emails received.

I guess that may be the number of objections received by the council in total.

Once again, the AFT have refused to say how many emails they received, so please stop quoting 60. Otherwise I'm going to have to keep typing this and everyone (including me) will get fed up