Jon
Admin 
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Oct 26, 2016 19:50:56 GMT
That story in the Herald clarifies the situation.
Dave Phillips' words are not those of someone who is keen to actively pursue safeguarding our club from vultures through promoting community ownership.
He is obviously still hell bent on getting his thirty pieces of silver by delivering our club into the hands of property developers, but wants to hedge his bets by keeping open the option of passing a dead duck (killed by the current board) on to someone else if he fails.
Community share issues succeed in two circumstances:
1. In a spirit of anger and protest against owners who are clearly setting out to kill the club.
2. As a united effort, when all agree to pull together to rescue the club.
The problem with Phillips and co is that they have managed to appear nice enough not to spark sufficient anger and loathing, yet they have utterly refused to unite the fanbase behind a concerted effort to save the club - indeed they have mocked such a concept.
At least Stephen Vaughan and Tommy Agombar were able to unify the fanbases at Chester and Hereford
|
|
|
|
Post by thefarmersfriend on Oct 26, 2016 20:45:23 GMT
There has been a clear attempt to string TUST and the fans along, with calls for quiet, practices of obfuscation and timewasting, along with a repeat of Masters' divide and rule Truro practice of setting up an alternative supporters club which, despite what Florida Gull says, I don't recall the Trust publically criticising at any time (perhaps they should have).
Certainly, if push comes to shove, I will readily put my hand in my pocket to join a community share issue, but while the club flatlines close to extinction with the incumbent board, all we can do is sit back and wait.
As regards the Trust's current financial clout, it's been mentioned many times before that Exeter City's trust had a similar amount in the bank when they were mobilised following the Lewis & Russell fiasco. As an Exeter resident, I recall at the time many people I knew here with no previous interest in ECFC or even football joined the Trust and got involved to save what they saw as a city asset. Indeed, a few of those people have stuck with it and remained fans since. All manner of fundraising and activity ensued, and whilst that Man Utd draw was probably the ultimate saviour, they would never have been in a position to reap that dividend without that mass mobilisation of support. My only worry with us is that, as Jon says, if/when the time comes, it may not look desperate enough to alarm or anger supporters into action. I also worry that the Torbay area doesn't have quite the same level of active community culture as my adopted city. The only thing that usually gets the pitchforks out in Torquay is the prospect of something changing from how it's always been. Maybe that should be the Trust's angle?
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,225 
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 26, 2016 23:51:11 GMT
What is clear is that the Board have admitted that they are in a slow motion car crash and cannot continue beyond January. The misleading narrative that TUST have no money seems to have prevented the board from taking them seriously until now, instead taking money in the form of a loan with unclear consequences if not paid back. This funding almost certainly saved us from relegation but will it have been worth it if we end up with no club? The board are in control though but should remember that ownership was passed to them as fans who could safeguard the club - will they do the same?
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Oct 27, 2016 2:01:53 GMT
I didn't say they were a panacea, flo. I said they were a safety net. A safety net that property developers would dearly love to see go away or be diluted, as us who go through the gate can easily get by on no communication from the Board, Pete Masters and GI as has been shown.
Jon's post reflects what I also fear from this latest press release. That's not fighting talk. That's very real fear for our future talk.
Of course, different demographics exist in different locations. I wouldn't dismiss something as unworkable that has worked elsewhere just because it's Torbay. Property developers would if that argument suited and it divided the only group of people whether trust members or not who actually cared about the club's future, though. GI have an incredibly large back catalogue of that sort of behaviour. Masters less so, but hardly insignificantly so. Not that Newport was a millionaires playground last time I went, although it helped that the outgoing owner also saw the benefit of all rallying around a community share issue. (Jon's scenario 1 cf Agombar and Hereford a few months prior.)
So again, why knock out the safety net?
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,225
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 27, 2016 7:17:25 GMT
Misleading in that there is a full stop after that narrative when it is quite clear that TUST have the ability to raise significant funds. There is a risk as to whether sufficient can be raised but compare that to directors who have taken loans they cannot repay from property developers and it starts to look like a realistic alternative.
Previous comments are correct in that we need everyone to pull together to make a community share issue work and raise as much as possible and in the absence of a white knight, the Board admitting we are in the do-do and getting behind this would be a start!
|
|
hector
TFF member
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by hector on Oct 27, 2016 14:10:54 GMT
It's easy to be critical of any of the parties involved in the club. But they also all have their merits. Is Dave Phillips disgruntled by TUST? I don't honestly know. He seems keen on putting the club in the hands of a private investor but is that the right direction? Maybe. I think you'll find that Dave Phillips just wants to put the club into the hands of an investor with funds to keep the club afloat, be they private or corporate. The key being that any investor can show the funds as available and I like to think that DP would also want to see not only what plans they had to preserve the club but how they would attempt to develop it into a self-funding entity. Let's not forget that despite any faults they may have, this board stepped in when the club needed help. TUST has done plenty in trying to provide a last-resort safety net for the club which, essentially, is based on crowd-funding. There are a decent number of people who want the club to succeed so a community share-issue should be pretty lucrative. I also feel that a community ownership scheme could trigger a much greater involvement in the club by many fans who want to improve the club on a voluntary basis. I would like to see this 'decent number of people' actually quantified and supported by hard evidence. Many people make statements that they can't follow through on, when the prospects of having to do so don't exist. As the Sun found out when it put itself behind a paywall. When it comes to parting with their own cash, what people say and what they do are 2 very different things; reportedly, 90% of it's readers deserted it for other the papers that remained free online, as soon as they were asked to put their hands in their pockets. It may be free again now but it is finding it very hard to claw those deserters back. I see that as the same basis for our club. Whilst DP shows a reluctance to involve TUST, fans may say they'll help TUST. If DP says OK to TUST, I will be very interested in seeing how many of those fans actually stump up their money. I am a TUST member but no-one has ever asked my position on this subject. I'm not poor but nonetheless, as a business man, I would still want to be reasonably assured that any money I gave would be utilised correctly to enhance the chances of the club surviving. Why will you be becoming an ex-TUST member? What have they/haven't they done to make you leave just when their raison d'etre is possibly about to be justified? Would you prefer the club to default on their loans and hand ownership to their creditors or go into administration without any organised effort to pick up the pieces? I will become an ex-TUST member because I don't really like the tone of the TUST these days. I didn't like the open letters, and said so at the time. I don't like the criticism of the new Supporters' Club. I feel TUST is giving itself too much self-importance. The decision to postpone the AGM and ignore the rule that says 50% of directors must resign does not sit well with me. I've sat on boards in the past and such a decision probably exceeds the power of the directors. We may only be a small club in the 5th tier but decisions like this are what turn democracies into dictatorships. As it is I no longer believe in the way TUST is going I will be exercising my democratic right to terminate my membership. So you don't like TUST because you have not been asked for your position on a subject or that any money would be utilised 'correctly'? Yet you don't like criticism of the new Supporters Club which is being set-up, along with the Players Fund to raise money for which you have absolutely no say? At least, with TUST, it is a democratic body (a concept no doubt anathema to Alpine Joe, of course). Elect the people you like and you get a say in how the money is being spent. TUST are merely postponing the rule that directors need to resign for obvious reasons. If the club is about to embark on community ownership, it cannot very well do that whilst those running TUST are in abeyance. |
|
Mark L
TFF member
Posts: 324
Favourite Player: Paul Baker
|
Post by Mark L on Oct 27, 2016 14:45:47 GMT
It's easy to be critical of any of the parties involved in the club. But they also all have their merits. Is Dave Phillips disgruntled by TUST? I don't honestly know. He seems keen on putting the club in the hands of a private investor but is that the right direction? Maybe. I think you'll find that Dave Phillips just wants to put the club into the hands of an investor with funds to keep the club afloat, be they private or corporate. The key being that any investor can show the funds as available and I like to think that DP would also want to see not only what plans they had to preserve the club but how they would attempt to develop it into a self-funding entity. Let's not forget that despite any faults they may have, this board stepped in when the club needed help. TUST has done plenty in trying to provide a last-resort safety net for the club which, essentially, is based on crowd-funding. There are a decent number of people who want the club to succeed so a community share-issue should be pretty lucrative. I also feel that a community ownership scheme could trigger a much greater involvement in the club by many fans who want to improve the club on a voluntary basis. I would like to see this 'decent number of people' actually quantified and supported by hard evidence. Many people make statements that they can't follow through on, when the prospects of having to do so don't exist. As the Sun found out when it put itself behind a paywall. When it comes to parting with their own cash, what people say and what they do are 2 very different things; reportedly, 90% of it's readers deserted it for other the papers that remained free online, as soon as they were asked to put their hands in their pockets. It may be free again now but it is finding it very hard to claw those deserters back. I see that as the same basis for our club. Whilst DP shows a reluctance to involve TUST, fans may say they'll help TUST. If DP says OK to TUST, I will be very interested in seeing how many of those fans actually stump up their money. I am a TUST member but no-one has ever asked my position on this subject. I'm not poor but nonetheless, as a business man, I would still want to be reasonably assured that any money I gave would be utilised correctly to enhance the chances of the club surviving. Why will you be becoming an ex-TUST member? What have they/haven't they done to make you leave just when their raison d'etre is possibly about to be justified? Would you prefer the club to default on their loans and hand ownership to their creditors or go into administration without any organised effort to pick up the pieces? I will become an ex-TUST member because I don't really like the tone of the TUST these days. I didn't like the open letters, and said so at the time. I don't like the criticism of the new Supporters' Club. I feel TUST is giving itself too much self-importance. The decision to postpone the AGM and ignore the rule that says 50% of directors must resign does not sit well with me. I've sat on boards in the past and such a decision probably exceeds the power of the directors. We may only be a small club in the 5th tier but decisions like this are what turn democracies into dictatorships. As it is I no longer believe in the way TUST is going I will be exercising my democratic right to terminate my membership. Ok, I don't want to turn this into a huge post! 1 - By private investor I meant exactly what you have said. I.e. not a community ownership but a private enterprise becoming the majority shareholder. 2 - A decent number of people, in my eyes, is what the majority of football league clubs have behind them (i.e. in our case a minimum of 1.5k and a maximum of, say, 5k?!) It's difficult to quantify how many of those would chip in. As Jon alludes to, a lot of that would be down to the atmosphere when push comes to shove. A siege mentality would help in the short term. I.e. I think the idea of 'just servicing a debt' won't really pull the fans in, but having a 'community project to save the club' would probably raise attendances way beyond what we have experienced thus far this season and perhaps keep the wolf from the gate a little longer in order to form a longer-term strategy. 3 - The reasons you dislike the trust are exactly why I like them. I think they are right to question the directors for many reasons. I also see nothing unreasonable about putting absolutely all issues aside (including forthcoming elections) in order to focus on, potentially, stepping in to pick up the pieces at Plainmoor. It is, after all, the main reason for their existence. I.e. a way of organising supporters in a time of great need. If there is one thing that I hope for above all, it is that the supporters will unite and try to make Torquay United a thing to enjoy once more. |
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Oct 27, 2016 18:44:40 GMT
I believe TUST can play a major role in the future of football in Torquay, but some of the TUST supporters who post on this forum seem to be unaware of how difficult things will be.
If TUST take over the club the first thing that has to be done is to ensure that the club operates within its means. At present the club is full time professional and it simply cannot afford to carry on like this. It will have to go semi professional and that will mean relegation. The problem is how many current supporters will be willingly to carry on supporting the club?
There is simply no way that a community share offer will raise enough money to cover the debts AND provide for investment in the playing side. Consider this; Bath City trust managed to raise £300,000. If we did the same £100,000 would straight to debt repayment, leaving £200,000. The playing budget this season was twice that and look what it brought us. You will probably argue we would raise more than Bath City did, but Bath is a more wealthy town than Torquay, Bath City can also claim to be a successful non-league club while we are really a fallen league club who if we are honest are not that well regarded by ther local population.
There can be a future for football at Plainmoor but it has to be, and will be different from the past.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Oct 27, 2016 23:08:32 GMT
Where's TUST's sustainable business plan, for example? How much will its cash reserves be to underwrite any initial income shortfall? Where was this board's sustainable business plan? How much share capital did they say they would put in? £300,000. How much did they put in? £0. No share capital, run up losses and borrow from property developers. If that was a plan, it wasn't a very good one. Under community ownership, there would have been some share capital injection - we don't know how much but Newport and Bath raised similar amounts of £250k+. There would also have been an appeal to utilise the huge amount of expertise within the fan base. I would still have expected losses in year 1, whereas this lot told us they would break even on gates of 1800 - which we exceeded. If this board had put in significant sums of money and had run the club near to breakeven, add in windfalls for MacDonald and Lavercombe, plus the fact that they have taken most of this season's gate revenue upfront through a season ticket offer, then why on earth have they borrowed significant sums from sharks? I don't want to seem anti-TUST but it's becoming easier to, with every post that seems to think they are the panacea. Can you point to anyone who has said that community ownership is a panacea? If the "do nothing option" was to plod along three quarters of the way down the National League with the board covering any small losses, I could live with that. In fact I would be grateful to the board for keeping the club going. He who pays the piper calls the tune, but this lot are not paying the piper are they? Perhaps you are more optimistic than I am that that is an option. They are going to give or sell the club to property developers. That will not end well in the long term. |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,225
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 27, 2016 23:58:46 GMT
A pretty damning analysis which I would generally agree with. Not sure that zero share capital equates to zero sums invested in the club. Would be pretty shocking if that was the case.
Dave Thomas seems pretty sure that they will go with the property developer option. Seems to think GI were slated due to their lack of communication. No doubt cosying up to the next set of owners.....
|
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Oct 28, 2016 16:34:18 GMT
If the board go with the property developers that will save TUST's face, because if they were to take over now they simply would not have enough time to raise the capital needed by the end of January.
Wrexham supporters trust had £400,000 ready before they took over their club; if TUST intend on sticking around ready to take the reins if the new owners decide to part with the club then they must be more financially prepared.
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Oct 28, 2016 17:30:18 GMT
If the board go with the property developers that will save TUST's face Well if that is seen as TUST's priority in such a situation, maybe we can all rally 'round in support of the nice property developers whilst being suspicious of that there fans grouping. That'll get things sorted. I think community share issues have been well explained already. Some will forever choose to ignore anything that doesn't have cash up front and immediately available, ignoring that the Board clearly didn't have this either when they took over or when they made a property developer our largest creditor. As Jon says, nobody has been saying a community share issue is a panacea. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Oct 28, 2016 18:11:29 GMT
If the board go with the property developers that will save TUST's face, because if they were to take over now they simply would not have enough time to raise the capital needed by the end of January. Wrexham supporters trust had £400,000 ready before they took over their club; if TUST intend on sticking around ready to take the reins if the new owners decide to part with the club then they must be more financially prepared. Save TUST's face? How exactly? I think TUST has consistently tried to educate the board on what the process of community ownership involves. The fact that this board steadfastly refuses to take reality on board and continues to take "special advice" from the very man who destroyed the chance of an orderly transition to the post-Thea era by sitting on an exclusivity period for months and dropping the club in the sh1t just before the Conference AGM is an embarrassment to the current board, not to TUST. It is this board who have watched the patient bleed to death and refused to call the ambulance. Of course, a community share issue would take a good three months. I think it is probably too late already. That is not TUST's fault is it? The option has been available for 18 months. As for Wrexham, they always have been and always will be a bigger club than Torquay. They raised that money in the face of what was blatant property dealing and in an atmosphere of hatred towards the Chairman of the club. www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wrexham-fc-boss-geoff-moss-1833460Geoff has had his reward now: www.wrexham.com/news/protest-held-over-unkept-promises-on-wrexham-village-flats-118077.htmlI really wish that TUFC had been taken over by an Agombar or a McCrory last year. You would then have seen a reaction. Someone like Masters has been very clever in getting the dirty work done by patsies who Torquay fans thought they could trust. |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,225
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 28, 2016 18:16:22 GMT
My understanding is that a community share issue will only work if there is a clear and present danger to the club for which everyone in the community can rally around to then create a community asset. A bit like having a gun with one bullet. No point in firing it early as you will miss. Best wait until the target is in sight. Even then no guarantee that we will hit it but maybe that is the best shot we have of saving the club?
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Oct 28, 2016 18:32:12 GMT
My understanding is that a community share issue will only work if there is a clear and present danger to the club for which everyone in the community can rally around to then create a community asset. A bit like having a gun with one bullet. No point in firing it early as you will miss. Best wait until the target is in sight. Even then no guarantee that we will hit it but maybe that is the best shot we have of saving the club? It would have worked in taking on a debt-free club from a a sympathetic wealthy owner with a strong and optimistic call to arms from all parties. Instead of that, we had Kelvin Thomas's idiot advice to Thea to only talk to parties who have TUFC at heart and £1m spare. Then we had Peter Masters' time wasting tactics - from which he may soon reap his reward. Then we had Dean Edwards' ego-trip. Then we have had this lot racking up the losses and borrowing money from those ever-so-nice property developers. |
|
