Torquay United Fans Forum

think I'd be a tiny bit pissed off if they won 7-0, lol. "where the hell was that all season?!?"

4-4

North Curry House wrote: ↑17 Apr 2024, 20:25 So the winning bid had more money, which means the TUST had insufficient.

I'd suggest that the bid that TUST has been involved with came in with a budget and a business plan (we know that at least one of the people involved is wealthy), but there was another bid that had a bigger budget and business plan

Using the word 'insufficient' here seems a bit unfair as it put you in mind of a bid that barely had a tenner to spend, which clearly wasn't the case.

Oddly, the first 20 minutes of the season I really thought we were going to piss it. 2-0 up at Dover. Then we collapse (a nice preview of the season overall)

Lots of factors combined to make this season a misery, though.

Johnson - the manager should undoubtedly have left after relegation last season. Yes, the team made a decent fist of it late in the season, but let's not forget how terrible we'd been in both 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. It was apparent even in the 21/22 season that whatever the "it" had been that GJ had, "it" had gone. At any functioning club a manager would be sacked after overseeing a decline from 2nd in the division to a relegation, but he was kept on.

Contracts/Budget - we offered contracts to pretty much all of the players who were part of the too-late revival. I dont know the details of those contracts, but basically everybody stuck around for another season, the only exception Frank Nouble whom we know has a very mercenary streak (this is fine by me, btw; players have to make whatever money they can). I don't know what the budget was for this season - I doubt we'll ever be told - but once those players were retained it seemed as though there was no money left to plug the holes we knew we had, particularly in defence. Defensively we've been abject all season and we never got round to signing a centre-half of any note. That we've had both Moxey and Hall back there of late tells a story.

Injuries - yes, this old chestnut. But it's true, we were incredibly unfortunate with injuries once again. Some of that is of our own making - signing players whom we know wont be able to play a majority of the season, or at least those who have known injury concerns. Hall, Dawson, & Martin are the most apparent of these, but we also have a bunch of in-game injuries to players that we'd consider important; Lapslie, Stobbs, Collins, Jarvis among them. We never really had the continuity, which makes it all the more incredible that we were 2nd in december.

Off-Field - I think everybody knew the Osborne regime was going to end this way. When the hammer finally came down, it was a sort of relief. I don't know how much this affected behind the scenes but I've worked at companies where it's obvious the people in charge are useless or disengaged. It's tough to deal with. But we go again

Taelee73 wrote: ↑16 Apr 2024, 11:52 TUST would be great, but what exactly did they mean when saying they'd need £150k raised from us within a few weeks?

Can they cover this if we don't, as we struggled to get 25k in a month recently.

I suspect that's the buy-in for a place in the consortium. If you have 4 or 5 individuals putting in money, it makes sense to expect the TUST to also pony up the table stakes for a seat on the board. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

The TUST's focus has not been on raising a bunch of money, but if they're to be a part of an ownership group they clearly need to be contributing something on the financial side.

desperado wrote: ↑14 Apr 2024, 20:33 Why would Chris Dawson be at the match yesterday sitting with our directors etc if he wasn't interested ?

we've no idea whether the picture is of him.
we've no idea whether, even assuming the pic *is* him, that he was there as a prospective owner
we've no idea about anything

The reason we don't know anything is because the club have told us nothing beyond the fact that's there's a 'preferred bidder'. We know from the TUST that it's not the bid they were involved with. At this point everything is pure speculation. Presumably the preferred bidder is doing due diligence. providing evidence of funding, that sort of thing. I also would expect them to waiting until we know exactly what divisino we'll be in next season, as that surely makes a material difference to the value of the club

Jpr wrote: ↑12 Apr 2024, 15:22 How to kick you when you’re down, Do the national league want teams in the league ? 10 points taken off before Administration started, yet week in week out we have to deal with joke officials

not sure why you're mad at the National League - be mad at the club who apparently didn't realise that one of our players had been booked enough times that he was suspended.

lucky we didn't win the game, really- the one point deduction suggests we drew the game in question

we should probably get hammered.

Bath 1-4 Torquay

oldpedant wrote: ↑11 Apr 2024, 09:40 No mention of a manager. I would have thought that comes second after ownership..

question was about the playing squad.

rivieratouch wrote: ↑09 Apr 2024, 17:55 I tend to view far more than I post, but next season, assuming we are still in the NLS, who out of this squad do we realistically

1. Want to keep
2. Expect to leave
3. Still contracted to us

Too soon to have this discussion really. We don't yet know who will be in control of the club for next season, and the only confirmed bidder that were aware of (who aren't the preferred bidders) started talking about the possibilty of requiring part time football for a while. While that prospect is anathema to me, I can certainly see the rationale.

My suspicion is that only Austen Booth has a contract for next season. I don't think we would be too upset if nobody else was offered a new contract, given results and performances. Obviously, with the ten point deduction we're not quite as bad as the table suggests, but regardless, we have been a terrible side in a desperate division mostly populated by semi-professionals.

Assuming a full time side, I'd probably keep Archer around (like every player it very much depends on their wage demands)

Halstead and Marshall can leave. Would allow Lovett to be first choice keeper - he's been solid when called upon and is presumably cheaper. I'd keep Tomlinson as I think he'd improve again. Collins and Stobbs should be too good for this division but haven't really shown it this season. Again...if cheap enough, fine. Ash is proven at this level, so - same.

Jarvis isn't staying. DOA can leave, he's perma-crocked. Hall and Moxey could be involved on the coaching/management side but it'd be moronic to expect them to play any more than 20 games each, so any contract would need to take that into account. Don't know if Dan Martin can be trusted to be fit but he's good enough. Dawson another whose fitness has been unreliable. And Finley Craske (forgot him). Lapslie I think will stay if he's offered any sort of liveable wage and honestly I'd probably keep him (esp. assuming our midfield will mostly be rebuild. McGavin I am torn on but I'm minded to let him go bc he's not suddenly going to find the mobility he lacks. Think I've accounted for 18 contracted players - that surely is all of them?

Loanees will return to clubs, probably to go out to NL clubs next season.

[Edit - I said "too soon to have this discussion, and then discussed it. At length. Lol]

Mysonjackg wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 17:06 Ok.. I will repeat myself for one last time as I am obviously not articulating myself very well.. To a certain extent this is somewhat of a pointless discussion anyway if the TUST / Consortium bid is off the table. But should it come back on again if the preferred bidder decides not to proceed, it is important to clear this up:

1 - Where has anyone said that £150k would be sufficient to cover expenses for the season? Of course it isn't. The £150k was a fundraising proposal to raise capital alongside that being injected by the Consortium in order that TUST had a share in the bid. As long as other funds were being injected then this would provide the necessary assurance with the TUST capital then being raised over the coming weeks. Of course there is no guarantee that funds would have been raised to that extent, but they do have a certain amount of available capital to initially inject anyway and I am sure the "astute" business people preparing the bid will have made provision for this. Let's be honest, for a long time it has not been clear there was anyone else commiting a bid and therefore at least the TUST and the consortium were willing to step up and try to do something. If another bidder with deeper pockets has come along then happy days!

2 - What confidentiality clause are you talking about? Have you seen any of the Non-Disclosure Agreements that may or may not have been signed? Since when has it been a state secret to announce you are bidding to buy something? I am sorry, but I take issue with you over this and feel strongly that you are doubting the intergity of the people behind the bid and TUST. If you are an organisation that has 850+ fans of the club as members who are paying subscriptions then you have to keep them updated. I would want to know where my money is going - wouldn't you?

My sense from regarding the TUST involvement (no evidence, just supposition on my part) was that the 'local businessmen', one of whom we know to be Michael Wescott, would each have been putting in some money to get the bid off the ground. In order to be involved, the Trust would also have needed to put in a similar amount. The £150k was perhaps the buy-in for board-level involvement. Seemed entirely reasonable to me.

Truro 1-3 Torquay

the self-delusion continues

BigDave wrote: ↑08 Apr 2024, 00:50 That is irrelevant and a facile comment. Whatever Osbourne's motive was for loaning money and taking ownership rather than forcing administration, it does not negate the fact that the Football Club has continued to operate for a further five years or more. Hitler wasn't a very nice man who invaded countries, caused a World War and was responsible for millions of deaths but that doesn't obliterate the fact that there were some technological and economic developments in Germany whilst he was in power. Osbourne isn't in the same league as Adolf but whilst it is obvious that his ultimate ambition was not beneficial for TUFC in the long term, it should not be denied that there was a long delay of several years between acquisition and entering administration which was of short-term benefit to the Club. I have not forgotten the promotion and the play-offs (or, for that matter, the relegations) that occurred during Osbourne's tenure but none of those were predicated on his property development motives and none of those would have occurred if administration had happened in 2017 rather than now as the Club would not have survived in its present form.

I dunno - if your argument boils down to "but Hitler actually got a lot right!", it feels like you're onto a loser.

Welling 2-4 Torquay

desperado wrote: ↑05 Apr 2024, 12:01 I understand the feelings towards Edwards but can someone explain why Mel Hayman is 'disliked' so much to put it mildly?

From what I can tell it's being tainted by association. If you're involved with a regime that everybody hates, you'll be associated with that regime regardless of whether or not you try to be a moderating influence behind the scenes. The online fans forum that took place a few months back also made her look like an Osborne lackey.

i don't know her myself, but while she may be a die-hard TUFC supporter with the very best of intentions, her actions (or inactions) in the past few years do not show her in a good light. She could have resigned from the board, done an interview in the paper and then got behind a bid and people would probably welcome her with open arms - but she kept silent and complicit with the GI chicanery.

There's so much money the club have been leaving on the proverbial table in the past few years, mostly through neglect; of the facilities, of the customers/fans, and of the matchday experience. If you make the place more appealing, you'll get more people through the gates, and if you do the matchday thing right, you'll get each person who does show up to spend more money. That million quid a year loss figure that's getting bandied about surely doesn't tell the whole story. We don't know how much is being spent on players, or how much Johnson was costing, and, most pertinently, we don't know how much of that number is CO's desperate attempt to get the stadium plans off the ground.

Yes it's tough to make full time football work at the lower levels, but we should not expect a 7 figure loss every season to be normal. With a well run club you could *probably* reduce that by at least two thirds.

I have doubts, like Dave, that part time is the way go. It's an easy leap to make - "we're losing money, what costs a lot of money, oh the players, well, let's just not pay them as much" - but for me that would be short-sighted and an almost immediate admission that we don't ever expect to be a League side again. I also don't think it's feasible to look at other part time teams and assume that we'd be able to get PT players of the same quality. Our location issues are well known- it's been a theme for as long I can remember - but Devon generally isn't the place to be if you want a high income, and that means that there isn't the same number of players who could play professional football if they wanted to, but for whom it doesn't make financial sense.

I obviously don't know what resources Michael Westcott's group has, but unless whoever takes over expects to lose a non-insignificant amount of money (call it £300k a year for 5 years, so £1.5m) I don't see a way back from NLS. Trying to put the club into profit or break-even from day 1 seems wildly unreasonable to me. I'd agree that club should work towards sustainability, but that takes time, and with each passing year you should be getting that bit closer. If you can engage the trust and (i've been banging this drum for a while) get them to 1,000 members each paying £20 a month, that's almost a further quarter mill a year that help that sustainability drive. At the very minimum we should targeting NL again with two (ideally one) seasons, because once there our revenue goes up a notch, and - crucially - I don't think a full time team in NLS would be paying much less than NL players would be expecting, on average. I also wonder if being a part-time side would limit the types of loans we could get in. We've had some really good loans in the past few seasons, and i'd not be surprised of not fully professional would make league clubs steer away. (I could be wrong ehre, this is merely thinking aloud)

Yesterday one of the best players on the park and got the first WSM goal No3 Jordan Bastin, certainly a better left footer than anything we've got was signed by WSM from Elmore, their No4 Lloyd Humphries who at times had total control of the midfield, stood head and shoulders above McGavin and Lapslie is a Welshman not sure where he's based but is playing part-time for Weston and their centre back No6 Raphael Araoye again stood stronger than ours is on loan from Bristol City this shows just how it can be done, these types of players who are clearly available right here in the South West would cost less than some of the over hyped full timers we've got, mixed with better sourced loan players that these part-time managers named seemed to be able to get hold of.

I may have to disagree a bit here, though - we've tried to bring in 'local' players from part-time sides before. Keelan O'Connell, Gabby Rodgers, even Austen Booth this season. None of these 3 (jury still out on the latter) lit the place up. I also don't think looking at midfielders who control the midfielder better than McGavin or Lapslie is the level we should be looking for.