PLAINMOOR FOR SALE?

Discuss everything TUFC with fans across the globe.
User avatar
Scott Brehaut
TorquayFans Admin
TorquayFans Admin
Posts: 4556
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 16:04
Favourite player: Lee Mansell
Location: Guernsey

Post by Scott Brehaut »

171....
Image

STIP
Friend of torquayfans.com
PhilGull
Top Scorer
Top Scorer
Posts: 1941
Joined: 06 Sep 2010, 08:36

Post by PhilGull »

gullpower wrote: 17 Jan 2017, 23:41

...then we still have a club.

"HOW does the club continue to survive financially over a period longer than the next season."

TUST? Peter Masters? TUST & Peter Masters? White Knight? GI might change their spots but if not and they are allowed to buy Plainmoor or strip the club then you are right, there will be no more TUFC.

The petition runs until Friday, not sure what time but if you are thinking of signing then best do it in the next couple of days.

COYY! :scarf:
Then depending how quickly the minutes of TUSTs meeting with GI are released and what time on Friday the petition closes I may sign then.
Gary Johnson's Yellow Army! Yellow Army! Yellow Army!

Your trust needs YOU!
TUST number 084
User avatar
Southampton Gull
TorquayFans Admin
TorquayFans Admin
Posts: 7675
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 01:35
Location: Southampton

Post by Southampton Gull »

Nice to see GI never change their spots. Osborne cronies trying to scare/divide the fanbase on social platforms. Personally I hope they're refused as fit and proper owners and slink off back to Swindon. They aren't good for TUFC and won't be, no matter how much they try to bluff their way into our affections.

Clarke, your boys aren't as clever as you think they are, you've been rumbled and better prepare yourself for a fight.
Dave




Friend of TorquayFans.com
standupsitdown
Top Scorer
Top Scorer
Posts: 1116
Joined: 31 May 2012, 20:56
Watches from: Pop side

Post by standupsitdown »

Positive reply from Councillor Parrott. Apologies if someone else has already posted similar.

Many thanks for your email.

I share your concerns about the future of Torquay United, both for the club itself and for its home within Torquay.

My position is clear: I shall vote against any change from the current situation, because that is what I believe is best for Torquay United, best for the Council in meeting the obligations of the covenants on the land, and - of course - represents the best use of the land for the people of the Bay. For clarity, that is: that the council retains ownership of the land and Torquay United remains the tenant.

I have made clear my position, as above, to my colleagues on the Mayor's Executive Group, well in advance of any meeting of the Policy Development Decision Group (PDDG), or any other council meeting.

I have been a TUFC fan since my grandfather first took me back in the early 1970s; Plainmoor has been the setting for so many memories, and long may that continue.

Please feel free to disseminate this reply as you wish, and I hope that you will forgive me, but time dictates that the above text will also form the basis of my response to others on this important subject.

Yours in yellow,

Julien

Julien Parrott
Councillor for Ellacombe
Executive Lead for Adults and Children, Torbay Council
User avatar
Louis
TorquayFans Admin
TorquayFans Admin
Posts: 6120
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 22:48
Location: Torquay
Watches from: Bristow’s Bench
Contact:

Post by Louis »

Good on you Julien! Thanks for sharing susd :)
⚽️ Prediction League 23/24 - TUFC merch prizes for grabs
⚽️ Press Room - all latest TUFC News
⚽️ @Torquay_Fans - follow us on X for all the latest

Image
gullpower
First Regular
First Regular
Posts: 327
Joined: 06 Oct 2015, 13:52
Location: Narnia

Post by gullpower »

I spotted this in a piece on the back page of the Herald written by David Thomas:

"Landlords Torbay Council were due to hold a regular meeting of the Policy, Development and Decision Group committee today. The subject of Plainmoor and its lease was not on the advance agenda, although it could be added at the last minute."

It was on the agenda for today but taken off and was supposed to be discussed at the 6th Feb meeting. So it could have been added at the last minute today, which means that fans who wanted to be at the meeting for the Plainmoor lease discussion would have missed it.

Does anyone know what happened at that meeting today?
Soupdragon
On the Bench
On the Bench
Posts: 123
Joined: 06 Nov 2016, 18:05
Favourite player: Steve Woods

Post by Soupdragon »

The Plainmoor 'issue' was deferred to the 6 February meeting to allow Kevin Mowatt time to prepare a thorough paper. It was not discussed today.

King George playing fields were, however, discussed. Decision to keep them as public going to full council for ratification (although the mayor and all councillors present were in agreement with this, a weird perfect storm combination of this decision being at odds with the council's published asset plan, plus the fact everyone thought the playing fields were part of a public trust although, in fact, it turns out they're not, means that decision couldn't be finalised today). Just as important to those concerned as Plainmoor is to us. Useful, as it's a precedent of sorts, I think.
PhilGull
Top Scorer
Top Scorer
Posts: 1941
Joined: 06 Sep 2010, 08:36

Post by PhilGull »

TUST had a meeting with Councillors today. According to email it was positive but with caveats. I am sure Mr Candy will pop it in the TUST thread before too long.
Gary Johnson's Yellow Army! Yellow Army! Yellow Army!

Your trust needs YOU!
TUST number 084
Soupdragon
On the Bench
On the Bench
Posts: 123
Joined: 06 Nov 2016, 18:05
Favourite player: Steve Woods

Post by Soupdragon »

PhilGull wrote: 19 Jan 2017, 21:23 TUST had a meeting with Councillors today. According to email it was positive but with caveats. I am sure Mr Candy will pop it in the TUST thread before too long.
The meeting was with council officers (ie: staff), not with councillors (elected representatives) so can be only advisory. Apologies for pedantry, but as this is a public forum, it's important people are properly informed!
gullpower
First Regular
First Regular
Posts: 327
Joined: 06 Oct 2015, 13:52
Location: Narnia

Post by gullpower »

Soupdragon wrote: 19 Jan 2017, 19:37 The Plainmoor 'issue' was deferred to the 6 February meeting to allow Kevin Mowatt time to prepare a thorough paper. It was not discussed today.

King George playing fields were, however, discussed. Decision to keep them as public going to full council for ratification (although the mayor and all councillors present were in agreement with this, a weird perfect storm combination of this decision being at odds with the council's published asset plan, plus the fact everyone thought the playing fields were part of a public trust although, in fact, it turns out they're not, means that decision couldn't be finalised today). Just as important to those concerned as Plainmoor is to us. Useful, as it's a precedent of sorts, I think.
Thanks for that info.
gullpower
First Regular
First Regular
Posts: 327
Joined: 06 Oct 2015, 13:52
Location: Narnia

Post by gullpower »

The Save Plainmoor petition has now ended with 176 signatories. It will be presented at the Policy Development and Decision Group (Joint Operations Team) meeting on 6th Feb where the lease of Plainmoor is due to be discussed.

In the meantime I am confused as statements regarding GI, the Council and the Plainmoor lease seem to conflict.

On the one hand the notes from the TUST meeting with the Council on 17th Jan state:

“The Council has not met GI since the takeover and has not received any specific proposals about either Plainmoor or other potential relocation sites. The Council has met previous club owners and other third parties (including GI earlier last year).”

Whereas at the end of the Club Statement released yesterday it states:

“The Board of Directors has been engaged in discussions with Torbay Council regarding various matters relating to the Club, and sporting and leisure facilities in Torbay. These include the potential purchase of the freehold interest in the Plainmoor Ground, and the discussions are ongoing.”
Soupdragon
On the Bench
On the Bench
Posts: 123
Joined: 06 Nov 2016, 18:05
Favourite player: Steve Woods

Post by Soupdragon »

gullpower wrote: 21 Jan 2017, 08:27 The Save Plainmoor petition has now ended with 176 signatories. It will be presented at the Policy Development and Decision Group (Joint Operations Team) meeting on 6th Feb where the lease of Plainmoor is due to be discussed.

In the meantime I am confused as statements regarding GI, the Council and the Plainmoor lease seem to conflict.

On the one hand the notes from the TUST meeting with the Council on 17th Jan state:

“The Council has not met GI since the takeover and has not received any specific proposals about either Plainmoor or other potential relocation sites. The Council has met previous club owners and other third parties (including GI earlier last year).”

Whereas at the end of the Club Statement released yesterday it states:

“The Board of Directors has been engaged in discussions with Torbay Council regarding various matters relating to the Club, and sporting and leisure facilities in Torbay. These include the potential purchase of the freehold interest in the Plainmoor Ground, and the discussions are ongoing.”
I noted that, too, gp. I guess it's because the council officers that Messrs Goulbourne etc met with don't actually know for certain who the elected members have been meeting with. TUST's note state that 'the council' (and we don't know whether the officers refer to themselves as that, to the elected members as that, or to a combination of the two. I suspect it's the first) has not met with GI since the takeover. The officers simply cannot know what the elected members are doing all the time. Plus, given the schisms in the local Tory party, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the anti-Oliver brigade has not sought to get involved with GI on the side.

It may also be that GI is prepared to play the long game and wait two years for the system at the town hall to change: there will then be a 'leader of the council' elected from among the majority party and we will go back to decisions being made in secret with no one for us to hold to account.

Still, the fact remains: it's currently a mayoral decision, and the mayor has already indicated that his decision will be made at a meeting held in public (eg: the PDDG on 6 Feb). If the mayor's decision is to send it to full council, then we need to make certain we have enough councillors for a simple majority. We can count on all the Lib Dems, as well as Julien Parrott of UKIP. What we need now is for people to contact their own ward councillors (mine are already covered by those voting to keep TUFC as a tenant of the council) and get a definitive answer from them and publish them here, in public, so they can be held to account. Remember, most of these Tories will want to be re-elected in just two years.

We have nine votes confirmed, and there are 37 up for grabs, including the mayor (although the chairman, a Tory, Hill, often votes twice if the vote is tied) so we need at least ten more Tories.

Ideally, though, we should aim for the mayor to make the right decision on 6 February, so we should also continue to write to him (and to Kevin Mowatt who is preparing the paper for the 6 Feb meeting) setting out a clear case for TUFC remaining as a tenant of the council.

Of course, even if the mayor makes the 'right' decision on 6 February, there's always the change of governance in 2017 for GI to try again. It won't end here, people.
User avatar
Southampton Gull
TorquayFans Admin
TorquayFans Admin
Posts: 7675
Joined: 05 Sep 2010, 01:35
Location: Southampton

Post by Southampton Gull »

Thanks very much for the clarity of the post, they don't half try to make things confusing.
Dave




Friend of TorquayFans.com
hector
Plays for Country
Plays for Country
Posts: 2441
Joined: 30 May 2011, 08:24
Favourite player: jim mcnichol

Post by hector »

What should be noted from the comments issues by TUST, in relation to their meeting with property developers, GI, is the one where it was said that 'promotion is not a short-term target' yet further into the report it suggests GI will move on if they cannot get their hands on the freehold.

Anyone who seriously thinks GI have any interesting in this club progressing, must surely need their head testing. This is a land grab. If we pretend and believe them for a minute and accept that promotion is, if not a short-term target, then no doubt, a long-term one, just what is meant by that?

Promotion will be a target once we are playing in a new stadium? How likely is it that we would be playing in a new stadium within the next two years, with all the issues relating to the site at the Willows, with all the planning issues that would need to be resolved, sale of Plainmoor etc and not least the fact that GI never actually build anything they promise to.

Promotion is a pipe dream. Long-term, we are looking at a decade or more and that is even if GI are being honest. What about if, as most suspect, they are not?

GI have the fan base by the balls. We refuse to go and they just run the club down and the reason for Plainmoor no longer exists. We go and they can make it appear that their plans and regime are well supported.
PhilGull
Top Scorer
Top Scorer
Posts: 1941
Joined: 06 Sep 2010, 08:36

Post by PhilGull »

hector wrote: 22 Jan 2017, 12:27 What should be noted from the comments issues by TUST, in relation to their meeting with property developers, GI, is the one where it was said that 'promotion is not a short-term target' yet further into the report it suggests GI will move on if they cannot get their hands on the freehold.

Anyone who seriously thinks GI have any interesting in this club progressing, must surely need their head testing. This is a land grab. If we pretend and believe them for a minute and accept that promotion is, if not a short-term target, then no doubt, a long-term one, just what is meant by that?

Promotion will be a target once we are playing in a new stadium? How likely is it that we would be playing in a new stadium within the next two years, with all the issues relating to the site at the Willows, with all the planning issues that would need to be resolved, sale of Plainmoor etc and not least the fact that GI never actually build anything they promise to.

Promotion is a pipe dream. Long-term, we are looking at a decade or more and that is even if GI are being honest. What about if, as most suspect, they are not?

GI have the fan base by the balls. We refuse to go and they just run the club down and the reason for Plainmoor no longer exists. We go and they can make it appear that their plans and regime are well supported.

Have to say I read it differently. They are a business and have bought a football club for very little money. As a business they want to maximise their earnings and as such are wanting to come up with a plan to invest in the club to move it forwards and increase it's value. Their plan is that in five years time we will be back in the Football League and they will be able to sell the club for a profit. If however someone comes in before then with a good offer then they are open to selling on before the five years plan is complete.
At the end of the day it is in the interest of GI for the club to flourish and grow and move forwards and upwards, if only to maximise their profit when they inevitably sell.
Gary Johnson's Yellow Army! Yellow Army! Yellow Army!

Your trust needs YOU!
TUST number 084
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchgull, gullsgullsgulls, Plymgull, United62, Vick and 327 guests