-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
A
Anonymous
Guest
esmer":1ryhb8jf said:
You are wrong esmer.
I respond to you in a personal capacity not
There is no in principle objection to the idea of a Trust Board member for JB. The issues/barries are plenty though and PERSONALLY I agree with him.
1. We could find the perfect person to represent supporters but what happens if he/she quits or he/she isn't re-elected. We all know that in reality most elections are a popularity contest. That is no way to elect somebody onto the Argyle board - we've had enough of that in the past.
2. Tying the Trusts hands. The Trust has been at its most effective over the last few months as an independent force working with the Club on some issues but having the choice of veto on others. Having a Trust member on the board would tie the hands of that individual and also see the blame for any negative decisions (price rises, player sales etc) laid at the fans reps doorstep.
In my view there is a great balance to be had. I would love to see the supporters own a % of the Club via the Trust and for the Trust to have a formal engagement agreement with the Club that would see supporters views taken onboard. I think JB is up for that and it is something we should push hard for.
Anyhow as I said, not the views of the society board or the members but just my observations / comments on how we can push the Trust to the next level.
tonycholwell":pp84xqh7 said:
Sorry tony, wasn't referring to you. I think I may have misread or misunderstood. I should know better than to post things first thing in the morning when half asleep!
Apologies.
Chris Webb":3piq4jie said:
Spot on in my opinion Chris.
And mate, that beard has got to go! I saw it on the GOS footage. Very sinister indeed!!! Hurry up with the takeover James!!!!
B
bandwagon
Guest
A
Anonymous
Guest
monkeywrench":16c4q5pa said:Chris Webb":16c4q5pa said:
Spot on in my opinion Chris.
And mate, that beard has got to go! I saw it on the GOS footage. Very sinister indeed!!! Hurry up with the takeover James!!!!
Haha, Its grim now mate. I did pull James Brent to one side yesterday and beg him to speed things up. Mind you it could be worse. IJN looks like a Badger has attached itself to his face!
A
Anonymous
Guest
A
Anonymous
Guest
Laughter My Ploy":28j1s4rs said:
Investors can ask such things. Mere customers cannot. Can't see that changing. Even in the warped business of pro football.
monkeywrench":23qh9cem said:
Monkey, no problem matey, I didnt think I was your intended victim as you know my office door is always open to you :greensmile:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Chris Webb":3kuowlpd said:
I agree wholeheartedly with what Chris has said. It was also my strongly held view whilst holding the position of Chair of the ISC of the Trust although that was not at the a time unanimously held view of the ISC. Having a Trust member on a Board would weaken its authoritative and independent voice. Although members of the Society Board are subject to election, as Chris has suggested any nominated appointee to the Board from the Trust would be open to compromise and lack of transparancy. Put simply it would not work. As far as share ownership goes, due to the legal entity that forms the backbone of the Trust it means they are the natural home for supporter share ownership which I feel has to be earned (i'e. bought) and not given if it is to have any value. This has worked well at other clubs and ensures proper representation in the corporate structure of the football club business.
I think it is also appropriate to say that moving forward it is important that all supporters groups are properly recognised and represented in whatever corporate governance structure emerges. Proper consultation and involvement should underpin and strengthen the unity that our fanbase has uniquely achieved in recent months. I was an advocate of that in my time as Chair and my involvement with the Contingency Plan Committee has demonstrated that under the most demanding of circumstances it can work with great effect. The Trust would obviously be a major force in whatever is set up but it is important that other supporter groups are recognised too. All have played a role to varying degrees in getting us to the brink of salvation.
In my view it is that this unity so uniquely and emotionally discharged on and off the pitch yesterday is the essential quality or building block that will ensure our great club can emerge from the traumas of the last nine months and begin its climb back towards the Championship.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Videos from the meeting for anyone who hasn't picked them up from the other thread;
Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZy9w-pmis
Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAE_tJXV9Cw
Video 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8fbg9EE_B0
Chris
Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZy9w-pmis
Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAE_tJXV9Cw
Video 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8fbg9EE_B0
Chris
R
Rupert
Guest
As an 'outsider' with no involvement in the Trust, I also think that the notion of a Trust representative on Argyle's new board of directors is a non-starter. It would not fit the Trust's need to maintain independence and the right to question the club's direction in public. Also, a lot of boardroom business rightly remains confidential, which could put a Trust representative in a very difficult position, given the Trust's commendable commitment to transparency and communication.
Graham , you said: Having a Trust member on a Board would weaken its authoritative and independent voice. Although members of the Society Board are subject to election, as Chris has suggested any nominated appointee to the Board from the Trust would be open to compromise and lack of transparancy. Put simply it would not work.
That is your opinion and I respect it, but there is no basis in evidence for your remarks - they are simply assertions... many other clubs have supporters on the Board and good governance has allowed for independence to be retained.
I believe that the Trust has a responsibility to research different models of the way forward, put them in front of its members and ask them to take a view - which the Society Board should then act upon.
We may be on the verge of a benevolent owner but we need to be moving towards a sustainable position of real input and influence over time. Simply asking for a few crumbs off the table when a less palateable successor comes along would I think leave us back at square one.
That is your opinion and I respect it, but there is no basis in evidence for your remarks - they are simply assertions... many other clubs have supporters on the Board and good governance has allowed for independence to be retained.
I believe that the Trust has a responsibility to research different models of the way forward, put them in front of its members and ask them to take a view - which the Society Board should then act upon.
We may be on the verge of a benevolent owner but we need to be moving towards a sustainable position of real input and influence over time. Simply asking for a few crumbs off the table when a less palateable successor comes along would I think leave us back at square one.
A
Anonymous
Guest
We have always had a friendly disagreement over this and equally I have respected your view. As you say, ultimately, it is a matter for the Trust membership and the Society Board to determine the Trust's position on this.
Virtually,every Football League club has a Trust that represents its members views on a properly constituted basis. Relatively few have supporter representation as a Board member. This may be for a variety of reasons.
I am not sure that a properly constructed consultative process and involvement together with a structured purchase of share ownership represents 'crumbs from the table'. It will still mean that supporters will have an independent and authoritative voice. A supporter's representative on the Board would be in danger of being consistently outvoted and impotent as well as frequently compromised.
For me that would be an unacceptable price of representation and in my view share ownership would be a more appropriate goal.
Virtually,every Football League club has a Trust that represents its members views on a properly constituted basis. Relatively few have supporter representation as a Board member. This may be for a variety of reasons.
I am not sure that a properly constructed consultative process and involvement together with a structured purchase of share ownership represents 'crumbs from the table'. It will still mean that supporters will have an independent and authoritative voice. A supporter's representative on the Board would be in danger of being consistently outvoted and impotent as well as frequently compromised.
For me that would be an unacceptable price of representation and in my view share ownership would be a more appropriate goal.
