Ridiculous revelations

I will add one further thought to this thread, Colin Lee is an employee of Torquay United, yes he is a director, but he is not a director of the consortium that own and run Torquay United.

The board is made up of well respected men who all hold responsible positions in life. Do you not think that if one of the employees of the club, was responsible for all that is being claimed, is also putting the future success of the club in any jeopardy, that it would not be taking some sort of action?

You may say they might be worried about having to pay compensation in some legal battle later, but why would that be the case, if an employee was misbehaving in any way.

I do not dought that there may have been problems between Bucks and Colin Lee, but the place to sort it out would be in the boardroom and not on some forum.

I rest my case.

Well that forum will certainly have the infamy it has craved if this festers too far, out of control and causes damage to the club

At the outset, I know nothing about this whole sorry episode.

I am however interested how this can fester and cause untold harm to our club? There are really some drama queens on both sites - apparently, the post by SG was made on the eve of one of the most vital in our clubs history?? Really?? Another one from journalism school. I think both websites are taking themselves a bit too seriously - I heard that Muzzy didn't start yesterday because Bucks was concerned that his head was not right after .net changed its background colour to yellow!! Get real folks!

I don't know SG, but would this site be so vitriolic had the original post been made by someone else....................or been made on this site? Am I being nieive, by just taking it as the rumblings of a very concerned TUFC fan who genuinely believes that he has some very worrying information about the inner workings of the club? These sort of allegations have been made time and time again in the recent history of TUFC - substitute the name Mike Bateson for Colin Lee and some currently spewing sanctimonious clap trap have made similar cost cutting allegations in the past.

Rightly or wrongly SG has put his name to some pretty specific issues. Where he has what he considers to be FACTS, he has labeled them as FACTS - FACT!. In this internet age of "I know something you don't", I find it quite refreshing. DaveR - sorry buddy, but when you posted about a dream that you had about someone senior at the club leaving, what exactly were you trying to achieve / say? Was that an ego trip?? I know which type of post I have more time for. Someone has put his neck on the line and will face the consequences. The allegations go way beyond the dispute between CL and SM - if they are true, and we are in danger of losing a manager then they are better in the public domain............if they are false, he will look a complete muppet, could well end up in court, his name will be mud, many will laugh and one or two on here will ejaculate. Either way, can anyone who has said that it will potentially ruin the season please explain how. Surely the players will know either way what is going inside the club..................god forbid some of the information may come from a player!

The criticisms leveled remind me of those leveled at Sheffield Gull ( I think) when he was trying to raise awareness of the inadequacies of Chris Roberts - apparently he was on an ego trip, following his own agenda - whilst some muppets jumped straight into bed with CR......presumably in his imaginary hotel next to our imaginary stadium near the sea front. It maybe unfair to compare the two scenarios, but SG has obviously heard something that has pushed him to the point where he goes public. Take it with a pinch of salt, but why not put aside your bitterness and accept the spirit in which it is made?

Some (but not all) of the points raised obviously stem from the dispute between CL and SM. One of the things I don't understand about this is why SM can't make his own points - he has used both main forums to get a message across. Why stand back and let SG take the flack, SM??

Sorry you feel Enzo that me getting upset that .net changed its colours to the same as this site, was silly or not important, but it was to me and I care not what you views are abut that.

So maybe I should have posted all that SG posted three months ago, seems if I had then I may have got YOUR respect.You need to stand back and take a proper look at not only the past but what is really going on now.

Ask yourself why I was told everything by someone who has never meet me before and does not know who I am. Look at the timing when I was told and look at the timing of SG post.Try and remember all that went on before on .net and ask why some who were close to wanting to kill each other, now seem the best of friends.

There is a world of difference between the events of Chris Robert and what is going on now, if you really can't see the harm that may be caused then sorry I'm not going to paint you the picture, just don't say later you did not know it could have ended like this, if it does harm the club.

I have no problems with SG, when we have talked we have got on well, he is doing what he feels is right, he will be a hero or end up a villain, he is big and ugly enough to know that and will end up being carried around in a chair or fall on his sword and die.

As I run this forum and do not agree that SG action is the correct one at this time, I feel its my duty to make sure this forum puts out its own message over these matters and I will continue to do that as long as I feel its the correct message.

Dave R

I've asked this question on the other site and I will repeat it here.

I know nothing about this story and have no intention of passing an opinion on it. I am simply perplexed by the attitude reportedly assumed by Colin Lee, particularly the fact that he refuses to speak to the manager, and cannot understand what he would gain from it. Unless he has suddenly acquired some form of mental illness, it just doesn't make sense.

In my state of naivety and ignorance, I hope someone can enlighten me.

Those two situations are a million miles apart.

Chris Roberts was driving our club onto the rocks and there was nobody at the club to stop him. Ian Hayman, who might have been able to do something, was off in Australia watching the Ashes. Poor old Mervyn Benney just could not work out what was going on. The club was heading unchecked towards destruction.

That was the background against which Sheffield Gull spoke up. He knew that rocking the boat and kicking up mud was very risky, but his judgment was that the club was facing ruin if nothing was done. You would take a 50/50 life-saving operation if the alternative was certain death. For what it is worth, I think his judgment was sound.

Our current position is that we have the best Board of Directors that we have had for forty years. They are responsible for running our club. They will make judgments on whether to make issues public. They will make judgments on whether to get rid of staff or not. They will make these jugments after considering all the facts. They will make these judgments in the interests of Torquay United Football Club. I certainly do not have any insider knowledge, but I have spoken with Simon Baker, Alex Rowe and Mark Boyce enough to know that they are certainly no fools and will not stand back and do nothing if they believe that doing nothing will damage the club. These guys have put their money where their mouths are. They do not need people "exposing" issues at the club.

Do I think that Southampton Gull is better placed than them to make policy decisions? No, I don't.

I do not doubt Southampton Gull's motives or his integrity, but I do doubt his judgment.

I doubted his judgment when he insisted that the Buckle / Rayner rift was entirely Buckle's fault and concluded that it proved that Buckle was a bad man-manager for scape-goating a totally innocent player. I questioned his ability to make a judgment on limited knowledge - but he was utterly convinced that hearing one side of the story put him in a position to judge. Note that down - it will come up again!

I doubted his judgment when he made insinuations about Shaun Melhuish's motives for sponsoring the club. Most of us know that Shaun has good points and bad points, but we do know that he has a genuine love of TUFC and most of us could see that was his motive for offering sponsorship. Southampton Gull thought he knew better.

I doubt his judgment now.

It's strange that the first outburst alluded to above cast Buckle as the villain. The second cast Melhuish as the villain. Now Buckle and Melhuish are heroes and Lee is the villain.

I think Southampton Gull is another of these "black and white" internet characters who has to classify people as a "goody" or a "baddy". Buckle, Melhuish, Lee - all have good points and bad points. We should never pigeon-hole people as we will be shocked to find that a "goody" has a bad point or a "baddy" has a good point.

I have every confidence in the Board to decide what bad points in club staff it can tolerate and what bad points it cannot tolerate.