Gullscorer wrote:TUST has never been in a position to be able to take over at Plainmoor, regardless of the attitudes of Masters and the board .
And why do you think that is?
Supporters Trusts tend to flourish when there is a realistic chance that they might get to take over the club. Quite often in a time of crisis.
TUFC were in a fairly unique position where a group of supporters were in control of the club. At the point of their takeover, there could have been a concerted effort to galvanise fans to try and secure supporter ownership. Had the club and press been behind it, then it is far more likely that supporters would have joined TUST and helped fund a bid for ownership.
However, those circumstances were never there. The club - supposed supporters - blocked TUST. They chose to listen to Peter Masters who has his own designs on the club. It is therefore self-proclaimed supporters who have sold the club out to property developers without even seeing if a TUST led board could have been viable.
Supporters Trusts tend to flourish when there is a realistic chance that they might get to take over the club. Quite often in a time of crisis.
TUFC were in a fairly unique position where a group of supporters were in control of the club. At the point of their takeover, there could have been a concerted effort to galvanise fans to try and secure supporter ownership. Had the club and press been behind it, then it is far more likely that supporters would have joined TUST and helped fund a bid for ownership.
However, those circumstances were never there. The club - supposed supporters - blocked TUST. They chose to listen to Peter Masters who has his own designs on the club. It is therefore self-proclaimed supporters who have sold the club out to property developers without even seeing if a TUST led board could have been viable.
The TUST end of year accounts had around £12k in the bank, what does that say? Hardly going to go far
Hector, I'm sorry to say that the impression outsiders have had of TUST is of an attitude of antagonism towards the board, arising out of a sense of entitlement, as if the board should have approached TUST cap in hand begging for TUST to take over the club, almost completely for free, when in reality TUST was a fringe group representing a very small proportion of supporters, with no more than £12000 in the bank. The extra pledges it managed to gain since then (was it £200k?) came too late.
And you blame the club for 'blocking' TUST? Are you serious? Anybody running the club at this time would have done the same. TUST never had any credibility. And if you're looking for someone to blame for what seems to be a poor working relationship between TUST and the club, the general feeling is that blame lies more with TUST than the club, for the reasons given above.
It is not the club's responsibility to find new members for TUST. TUST should ask itself why has it attracted only comparatively few supporters thus far; it's certainly not due to the club's blocking of TUST as you suggest. Those additional new TUST members, along with the additional TUST funding, should already have been in place a year ago.
It may be that TUST at some time in the future will be in a position to make a significant contribution to the running of the club. In the meantime it should focus on attracting new members so that it more fully represents supporters, and be grateful that the new owners will be offering TUST representation on the board.
hector wrote:I don't think anyone is pretending tha TUST is the answer to all of our problems and would mark the start of a braver new world. However, with TUST as owners, we at least would know that every decision made would be in the interests of the football club and if we didn't like decisions, we could exercise our right as members to vote those making decisions off the board.
That surely has to be a better option than asset-stripping, property-developers using the club to further their land-grabbing aims. TUST wasn't given the opportunity to test potential growth, which would mean a realistic option of owning the club. They were just strung along and the momentum required to get fans behind a bid for the club was never allowed to grow because Peter Masters probably had the ear of the board.
Had TUST been able to take control, even if it was until a benevolent owner came along, that would have been a much better option than watching what is probably about to unfurl.
TUST were encouraged then publicly knocked back by the Board, so it's hardly surprising that many fans were sceptical about their ability to run the club. The Board with Masters played a clever game.
We'll never know what would have happened if the Board had made a genuine approach and said "We're in trouble, come on board".
There are plenty of examples of supporter ownership working in this tier and the one above, including the one up the road. Why shouldn't it have worked here given the chance?
The need for close scrutiny,transparency and open communication with the supporters is paramount- we need a strong,active supporters organisation ready to challenge and hold the owners to account.If you agree with this then join TUST instead of talking them down because of lack of numbers.
torregull wrote:The need for close scrutiny,transparency and open communication with the supporters is paramount- we need a strong,active supporters organisation ready to challenge and hold the owners to account.If you agree with this then join TUST instead of talking them down because of lack of numbers.
Again this antagonistic approach to the club from TUST supporters: 'challenge and hold the owners to account'. This kind of attitude is not going to endear the TUST to the club's owners, nor to the general multitude of supporters.
We need a TUST which recognises that it is a minority group with comparatively few members and insufficient cash which was never going to run the club in any sustainable way at the present time. Some time in the future perhaps, but TUST currently suffers from a surfeit of hubris which it needs to cast off.
Only then can it begin working with the new owners in a positive way for the benefit of all concerned.
Gullscorer wrote:
Again this antagonistic approach to the club from TUST supporters: 'challenge and hold the owners to account'. This kind of attitude is not going to endear the TUST to the club's owners, nor to the general multitude of supporters.
We need a TUST which recognises that it is a minority group with comparatively few members and insufficient cash which was never going to run the club in any sustainable way at the present time. Some time in the future perhaps, but TUST currently suffers from a surfeit of hubris which it needs to cast off.
Only then can it begin working with the new owners in a positive way for the benefit of all concerned.
400 members out of an average crowd of around 1800-2000 is not 'comparatively few members', it is also the largest association of Torquay United fans in existence and indeed the only outlet for Torquay United supporters (ignoring the woeful official supporters club).
Gullscorer wrote:Hector, I'm sorry to say that the impression outsiders have had of TUST is of an attitude of antagonism towards the board, arising out of a sense of entitlement, as if the board should have approached TUST cap in hand begging for TUST to take over the club, almost completely for free, when in reality TUST was a fringe group representing a very small proportion of supporters, with no more than £12000 in the bank. The extra pledges it managed to gain since then (was it £200k?) came too late.
And you blame the club for 'blocking' TUST? Are you serious? Anybody running the club at this time would have done the same. TUST never had any credibility. And if you're looking for someone to blame for what seems to be a poor working relationship between TUST and the club, the general feeling is that blame lies more with TUST than the club, for the reasons given above.
It is not the club's responsibility to find new members for TUST. TUST should ask itself why has it attracted only comparatively few supporters thus far; it's certainly not due to the club's blocking of TUST as you suggest. Those additional new TUST members, along with the additional TUST funding, should already have been in place a year ago.
It may be that TUST at some time in the future will be in a position to make a significant contribution to the running of the club. In the meantime it should focus on attracting new members so that it more fully represents supporters, and be grateful that the new owners will be offering TUST representation on the board.
I'm not a huge fan of TUST but I think you're wrong here. TUST were as frustrated as any fan was over the lack of communication from the Club and also the Boards refusal to allow any opportunity for alternatives to GI to gain control of the club. In this instance I back their intentions 100% There were credible alternatives, the smokescreen put up by certain parties was swallowed by the majority.
The number of Torquay United supporters is far greater than the number able to get to Plainmoor home games. But whatever, my point about TUST still stands. Just what is TUST saying and doing to support the club, the manager, and the players? Very little, so far as I can see. It simply expects to be given a significant say in the running of the club, and whinges and complains when it is rightly rejected for the reasons already given. The official Gulls supporters club is doing more for the club right now, and in a more positive way. Dave I disagree that TUST were a credible alternative.
I think this way of thinking is crippling the club. It is indicative of the lack of ambition that has underpinned our failure on and off the field for years.
There is no saviour waiting to pump millions into TUFC to get us back challenging for a spot in League 1. Moreover, the footballing world couldn't care less if clubs like our cease to exist, as AFC Bournemouth's handling of O'Kane's transfer displayed.
TUST isn't an extremist union looking for revolution, it is a body of fans looking to ensure the club exists for future generations. It baffles me that in the face of administration, fans would still rather cross their fingers and hope, rather than sign up to an organisation that could prevent the worst from happening long term.
TUST doesn't need to be a minority group and have insufficient funds, Torquay United doesn't have to be in a perilous situation. It's up to each of us to decide, though.
Which league do you want to play in Chris.? If it's National South or below I agree with you. If you are talking higher I don't see it right now. I think the money required for ft footballers is unlikely to be there I 'm afraid. I am however a supporter of TUST and will remain so. It will always have a role to play.
Strikes me the only ideologues seem to be those wanting to put the boot in to a supporters trust with every post. The immovable dogma appears to lie elsewhere.
Gullscorer ...Yeah right the "official " supporters club whose organiser called supporters on forums KEYBOARD WANKERS !! Thats certainly the way to win friends and influence people ! So you prefer a Hull City supporter rather than true Torquay United supporters....interesting....
The new OFFICIAL supporters club has done more in 3 months than the trust in 3 years that's why I am backing them to truly represent the supporters, just read their aims and objectives. They actually get things done not like the Trust who are empty vessels
