I have great admiration and respect for all those involved in the contingency group and the GT's. Through all of their efforts they have helped to ensure PAFC's exit from administration and in no way do I begrudge them being given a few "perks" by way of a thank you from both James Brent and the wider fanbase.

I do however feel that John Vaughan has a point in his original post in that the Contingency Group seem to have transformed into the Consultancy Group. Again I believe it is a positive thing that the new owner is engaging with fans but feel that any official meeting (and the original post does give the tone of an official meeting) should be organised through either the trust or an official supporters group, otherwise there seems to be no point in the Trust even existing.

If the club is serious about progressing both in the short and long term then it needs to project an inclusive image and I'm afraid consulting a group of well meaning but unelected fans representatives drawn from a small cross section of people is not going to help the club reach out to the less dedicated supporters who Argyle will need to attract if they want to progress out of the lower leagues.

Reading between the lines as we eare encouraged to do, seems to me a JB sponsored lunch as a thank you to the CPers. However, by calling it a meeting, avoids tax issues, like "benefits in kind".

Not sure anyone could deny someone else a free lunch.

Business entertainment is non deductible Tony, meeting or no meeting.

Thats why you dont call it entertainment:)

The Trust's role post crisis is a bit hazy to say the least and whether it will be a relevant organization in PAFC's future is questionable. It needs to re-sell itself with clear, pertinent objectives (I don't have any suggestions) otherwise it could sink into obscurity. I suppose there's a problem in, on one hand, being seen as "the owners conduit" and lose credibility, or being too aggressive and be frozen out by the owner and directors.

The Trust's role post crisis is a bit hazy to say the least and whether it will be a relevant organization in PAFC's future is questionable. It needs to re-sell itself with clear, pertinent objectives (I don't have any suggestions) otherwise it could sink into obscurity. I suppose there's a problem in, on one hand, being seen as "the owners conduit" and lose credibility, or being too aggressive and be frozen out by the owner and directors.

buses

I have great admiration and respect for all those involved in the contingency group and the GT's. Through all of their efforts they have helped to ensure PAFC's exit from administration and in no way do I begrudge them being given a few "perks" by way of a thank you from both James Brent and the wider fanbase.

I do however feel that John Vaughan has a point in his original post in that the Contingency Group seem to have transformed into the Consultancy Group. Again I believe it is a positive thing that the new owner is engaging with fans but feel that any official meeting (and the original post does give the tone of an official meeting) should be organised through either the trust or an official supporters group, otherwise there seems to be no point in the Trust even existing.

If the club is serious about progressing both in the short and long term then it needs to project an inclusive image and I'm afraid consulting a group of well meaning but unelected fans representatives drawn from a small cross section of people is not going to help the club reach out to the less dedicated supporters who Argyle will need to attract if they want to progress out of the lower leagues.

Please tell me where he should start then in his reaching out ?

Firstly with an inclusive group such as the Supporters Trust or if they are unable to adequately represent themselves during the this transitional period, then with one of the many other organised supporters groups such as PASALB. I have no problem with James Brent seeking advice from any individual supporters on an informal basis whomever they may be, what I disagree with is the Contingency Group becoming some kind of official fans' voice. This may not be the intention but it will certainly be the perception of many non believers.

[Daz]

The Trust's role post crisis is a bit hazy to say the least and whether it will be a relevant organization in PAFC's future is questionable. It needs to re-sell itself with clear, pertinent objectives (I don't have any suggestions) otherwise it could sink into obscurity. I suppose there's a problem in, on one hand, being seen as "the owners conduit" and lose credibility, or being too aggressive and be frozen out by the owner and directors.

buses

Dont forget smoking shelters.

[Daz]

I have great admiration and respect for all those involved in the contingency group and the GT's. Through all of their efforts they have helped to ensure PAFC's exit from administration and in no way do I begrudge them being given a few "perks" by way of a thank you from both James Brent and the wider fanbase.

I do however feel that John Vaughan has a point in his original post in that the Contingency Group seem to have transformed into the Consultancy Group. Again I believe it is a positive thing that the new owner is engaging with fans but feel that any official meeting (and the original post does give the tone of an official meeting) should be organised through either the trust or an official supporters group, otherwise there seems to be no point in the Trust even existing.

If the club is serious about progressing both in the short and long term then it needs to project an inclusive image and I'm afraid consulting a group of well meaning but unelected fans representatives drawn from a small cross section of people is not going to help the club reach out to the less dedicated supporters who Argyle will need to attract if they want to progress out of the lower leagues.

Please tell me where he should start then in his reaching out ?

Firstly with an inclusive group such as the Supporters Trust or if they are unable to adequately represent themselves during the this transitional period, then with one of the many other organised supporters groups such as PASALB. I have no problem with James Brent seeking advice from any individual supporters on an informal basis whomever they may be, what I disagree with is the Contingency Group becoming some kind of official fans' voice. This may not be the intention but it will certainly be the perception of many non believers.

So he consult with a group as long as its a group you want?

[monkeywrench]

Reading between the lines as we eare encouraged to do, seems to me a JB sponsored lunch as a thank you to the CPers. However, by calling it a meeting, avoids tax issues, like "benefits in kind".

Not sure anyone could deny someone else a free lunch.

Business entertainment is non deductible Tony, meeting or no meeting.

Thats why you dont call it entertainment:)

Haha, like it.

Well, you can call it what you like, the expenses incurred are still not deductible!!!

I have great admiration and respect for all those involved in the contingency group and the GT's. Through all of their efforts they have helped to ensure PAFC's exit from administration and in no way do I begrudge them being given a few "perks" by way of a thank you from both James Brent and the wider fanbase.

I do however feel that John Vaughan has a point in his original post in that the Contingency Group seem to have transformed into the Consultancy Group. Again I believe it is a positive thing that the new owner is engaging with fans but feel that any official meeting (and the original post does give the tone of an official meeting) should be organised through either the trust or an official supporters group, otherwise there seems to be no point in the Trust even existing.

If the club is serious about progressing both in the short and long term then it needs to project an inclusive image and I'm afraid consulting a group of well meaning but unelected fans representatives drawn from a small cross section of people is not going to help the club reach out to the less dedicated supporters who Argyle will need to attract if they want to progress out of the lower leagues.

Please tell me where he should start then in his reaching out ?

Firstly with an inclusive group such as the Supporters Trust or if they are unable to adequately represent themselves during the this transitional period, then with one of the many other organised supporters groups such as PASALB. I have no problem with James Brent seeking advice from any individual supporters on an informal basis whomever they may be, what I disagree with is the Contingency Group becoming some kind of official fans' voice. This may not be the intention but it will certainly be the perception of many non believers.

The Contingency Group includes representation from the Trust and although the leadership might not have been elected, I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of it's approx 1500 members nevertheless consider the Trust represents them (otherwise you would see discontent on these boards). If people feel the Trust does not represent them, then they can join up and put your views accross. If they think their your voice would not be heard, they can start an alternative group and contact James Brent to ask for a channel of communication to be opened. It really is that simple. At the moment, the Trust is the closest thing we've got to an an official fans' voice. That's better than nothing and its by no means as unrepresentative as it need be if other people get off their arse and say and do something constructive about it rather than just nit picking and sniping at every little thing from the sidelines.

As the CPer's have worked so closely (and effectively) with the new owner in the past, they could be portrayed in the future as being "too close" to be truly objective and independent.

Whilst everyone seems to be best of buddies at present, it must be remembered that the aims of the owner and of the fans might not tally so much in the future.


As for the Trust representing all fans, I would point out that 25%-30% of the average gate at the bottom of the League (and a mere 10% of the gate in better times) is not an overwhelming mandate.

Reading between the lines as we eare encouraged to do, seems to me a JB sponsored lunch as a thank you to the CPers. However, by calling it a meeting, avoids tax issues, like "benefits in kind".

Not sure anyone could deny someone else a free lunch.

Business entertainment is non deductible Tony, meeting or no meeting.

Thats why you dont call it entertainment:)

Haha, like it.

Well, you can call it what you like, the expenses incurred are still not deductible!!!

Really? Always ways around such things

From HMRC

...a deduction may be due if the employee is required for genuine business reasons to entertain
customers, suppliers, or other business connections in the course of performing the duties of
the employment.
The expenses of a particular occasion are normally allowable if the purpose was to discuss a
particular business project. They may also be allowable if the purpose was to maintain an existing
business connection or to form a new one, even though no business was actually done.

God I'm boring knowing that!!

I have great admiration and respect for all those involved in the contingency group and the GT's. Through all of their efforts they have helped to ensure PAFC's exit from administration and in no way do I begrudge them being given a few "perks" by way of a thank you from both James Brent and the wider fanbase.

I do however feel that John Vaughan has a point in his original post in that the Contingency Group seem to have transformed into the Consultancy Group. Again I believe it is a positive thing that the new owner is engaging with fans but feel that any official meeting (and the original post does give the tone of an official meeting) should be organised through either the trust or an official supporters group, otherwise there seems to be no point in the Trust even existing.

If the club is serious about progressing both in the short and long term then it needs to project an inclusive image and I'm afraid consulting a group of well meaning but unelected fans representatives drawn from a small cross section of people is not going to help the club reach out to the less dedicated supporters who Argyle will need to attract if they want to progress out of the lower leagues.

Please tell me where he should start then in his reaching out ?

Firstly with an inclusive group such as the Supporters Trust or if they are unable to adequately represent themselves during the this transitional period, then with one of the many other organised supporters groups such as PASALB. I have no problem with James Brent seeking advice from any individual supporters on an informal basis whomever they may be, what I disagree with is the Contingency Group becoming some kind of official fans' voice. This may not be the intention but it will certainly be the perception of many non believers.

The Contingency Group includes representation from the Trust and although the leadership might not have been elected, I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of it's approx 1500 members nevertheless consider the Trust represents them (otherwise you would see discontent on these boards). If people feel the Trust does not represent them, then they can join up and put your views accross. If they think their your voice would not be heard, they can start an alternative group and contact James Brent to ask for a channel of communication to be opened. It really is that simple. At the moment, the Trust is the closest thing we've got to an an official fans' voice. That's better than nothing and its by no means as unrepresentative as it need be if other people get off their arse and say and do something constructive about it rather than just nit picking and sniping at every little thing from the sidelines.

I agree with some of your post, however your claim that those who disagree with the direction of the trust will join up and seek to change things for the better is in my opinion sadly inaccurate. What is far more likely is that they will become disillusioned with it and not bother renewing their membership. This disillusionment will only be confounded when the trust is sidelined by the Contingency Group, yes the trust has a token representation within the group but it is not leading it as it should be, seeing as it is the largest supporters group of it's kind. Also your claim that there would be more dissent on here from trust members if everyone wasn't in agreement with their direction is a little presumptuous. Only a minority of the Trusts 1500 members post regularly on here, I myself am a trust member and feel uneasy with the direction (or lack of) taken.

Again I will re-iterate, I have no problem with the people involved in the Contingency Group and broadly I have no problem with James Brent seeking advice from those who have the club's best interests at heart. My issue is with how it is presented, you might call this nit picking, but in my opinion at this key point in the trusts development perception is everything. By calling this a meeting of the Contingency Group as opposed to a Trust meeting with other representatives present it gives the impression of an unelected elite group of fans claiming to represent the wider fan base.

The Trust needs to be seen to have an active role and influence as as well as having clear goals for the future if it is to develop beyond the hardcore supporters, being sidelined at this crucial time in the club's history will see it die a quick death and diminish any long term democratic voice available to supporters.

As the CPer's have worked so closely (and effectively) with the new owner in the past, they could be portrayed in the future as being "too close" to be truly objective and independent.

Whilst everyone seems to be best of buddies at present, it must be remembered that the aims of the owner and of the fans might not tally so much in the future.


As for the Trust representing all fans, I would point out that 25%-30% of the average gate at the bottom of the League (and a mere 10% of the gate in better times) is not an overwhelming mandate.

I agree regards the closeness "familiarity breeds contempt".I can understand this meeting taking place, no doubt as a thank you and informing the CP team more details on the way forward. The majority of the fans are not yet represented, the trust is the largest body that represents 1500 aprox fans, they must stay independent and focus on increasing the membership at present there does not seem any proactive advertising to increase the membership .The sooner the trust get an elected committee and get a mandate the better at present it looks like there are a clique of people given their views.