Torquay United Fans Forum

tufcyellowarmy wrote: ↑03 May 2018, 16:48 Maybe still some concern re his serious knee injury and it’s likelihood to cause an issue. Just a thought .

Yep all guess work. Perhaps Gareth Law advised that Youngy should be offered no more than a 1 year contract because of that knee. And as a consequence Owers now sees his best player walk out the door for nothing. It would explain a lot =D

It could have been hard work to even persuade him to sign that one year contract. If I'd been his agent that would have been the very most I would have advised him to commit to. Now he can bargain a better deal for himself with a League club, as they don't have to additionally shell out a transfer fee.

Dave

He hasn't been back to answer my reply to him where he totally misread my statement about Osborne and Masters. Obviously doesn't have the stomach to face militants

My hands were shaking too much to lace my DM's up properly. I'd complain to Admin about TUST bullying.....if they weren't also the Admin =D

With no football this weekend are we scraping the barrel for something to stir up to pass the time ?. I feel like Count Dankula trying to say ‘Look I wasn’t seriously advocating that the Jews should be gassed, and my dog isn’t really a Nazi’.

So I might have to wander off to feed the pug in a minute.

Firstly you cannot overestimate the mind numbing triviality of what was most likely accidentally rather than deliberately misconstrued here.

So you’ve got me and Merse, two old duffers who neither use Facebook, and neither of us have looked on Facebook/Twitter to check on what had actually been said.

Merse posted: ‘Has he said ~ as twitter/facebook was supposed to be awash with ~ that Osborne had sold up? No he put a question mark after it which even to an idiot, does suggest he is asking a question’.

The implication being that those who posted on Facebook/Twitter stating that Osborne had sold up, were below the level of idiots. As ‘even an idiot’ would have known that a question was being asked, as idiot level intelligence at least gives you the capacity to recognise the ‘?’ symbol and know what it stands for.

Now Merse, I’m sure, wasn’t being 100% serious. And in my reply to him I firstly attach a smiley to indicate that I’m dreaming up no more than a humorous defence of those ‘below idiot level’ Facebook posters. By the same token, wondering whether the question mark might have appeared somewhere else on Merse’s screen, compared to where I was seeing it on mine, was written in the same vein, i.e humorously and not to be taken literally.




It’s hard to have to try to take this seriously and to explain a pretty weak late evening jokey comment directed to one person (Merse), but instead of accepting the ‘too thick to understand there was a question being posed’ explanation for what inaccurately appeared on Facebook/Twitter, I light heartedly and with ‘smiley’ first remember, in effect reply to Merse ‘Oi maybe they weren’t that thick, but just rushed off to Facebook/Twitter to announce the ‘selling up’ before returning to read up on the less interesting question of who the buyer might be.

It was a reply to Merse that was off the cuff, off the top of my head, call it what you like, and which I’d given less than 10 seconds thought to. It wasn’t particularly witty….but I tried.

Dave then observes: ‘I think you've just taken it as you want it to read’. Well yeah, exactly right, my couple of lines to Merse were saying ‘Hey Merse here’s a (slightly) funny ‘Justice for the idiots’ type interpretation, based on taking it how it needs to be read to cast them in a better and less stupid light than you’d done’.

It was no more than a 10 second post of unbelievable unimportance and triviality, to my mind misinterpreted by Dave, who rightly had other matters of REAL importance on his mind, as his post of a few hours before mine had explained.

In the circumstances letting it lie looked like the ‘win win’ option. I was happy to let Dave draw the conclusions that suited him, plus enjoy the satisfaction he would have gained from having a go at me. In exchange I benefitted from not having to spend considerable time trying to explain the process whereby crossed wires had arisen over something of infinitesimal unimportance.

It’s clearly remained an issue, still rumbling on, so with this attempt to address it, along with an assurance that I will resume being a reader rather than a poster, it would be nice if a line can now be drawn under it.

Merse

Has he said ~ as twitter/facebook was supposed to be awash with ~ that Osborne had sold up? No he put a question mark after it

Can't agree with you on that Merse . On my screen there's only a question mark as to the buyer, i.e is it Masters ? Nothing questioning the actual selling side of the transaction, only the identity of the buyer. Once you've read that Osborne has sold up.... you're than asked to speculate who to ?

Dannyrvtufc4life

I've turned out to be not a fan of this Tory Government, but I think blaming them for spending money on NYE fireworks instead of funding the NHS is a step too far.

As Remainer May's biggest cheerleader the last we knew, I'm startled to learn you're now 'not a fan' of a Government in which every one of it's members was appointed by Theresa the Appeaser.

But to see you now giving credence to the total bullshit attempts to connect the Tory Government with London's New Years Eve fireworks is equally unfathomable. Why not just ignore it like the rest of us did ?

London is governed by a Labour Mayor Khan. The majority group in the London Assembly is Labour. Not only do the London council tax payers have to cough up for the cost of the fireworks, but Khan then charges them an extra £10 for a ticket if they want to go along and watch them. You can't even pin this on the Tories locally in London, let alone nationally.

Sort yourself out Danny, or you'll be banished to the Liberal Democrats . Happy New Year

budegull1954 wrote: ↑13 Sep 2017, 16:32 How do you pronounce Gary Owers' surname - is it Owers as in 'lowers', or 'hours'? A bit like the debate about the pronunciation of David Bowie's surname.

Always pronounced 'Hours' by every commentator during his playing career, so I'm certain that pronunciation is the correct one.

hector wrote: ↑12 Sep 2017, 23:31 I We wait for four weeks and we end up with Bath City's manager?

We waited days, then weeks, but it ended in Owers (geddit ? )

arry

I had it on very good authority that Ronnie was literally nailed on, yet oddly it appears he walked away... although, would you blame him??

It was probably that literal nailing than convinced him to walk....even if it did rip his jacket

Not wishing to take you Phoenix fans off topic, but I'm sticking with Lingy's version that Thea told him he was sacked while speaking to him on the telephone. This 'text' story sounds a bit dodgy.


"I was amazed to receive a phone call from Thea Bristow [the Torquay chairwoman] at 7.30 on Sunday night to say that my contract with the club was being terminated after all the assurances during my illness and full recovery that I would be returning as manager of Torquay," he said.

Hanging On The Telephone

SenorDingDong

The reason for the so called 'TUST propaganda' is GI's history in sports, go out there and google it. It's all there before you. Without that history then the fans would have been far more welcoming, especially after the utter shambles of Thea Bristow's reign and Dave Phillips' omnishambles. GI compounded this with their utter lack of action and communication with the fans in their first six months of ownership, they're getting better but we'll still view them with the suspicion that their history deserves.

The TUST aren't breaking away to 'set themselves up as potential owners', I imagine it's the last thing most of them would want to have to do, they're providing a dissenting voice and keeping the fans engaged and informed about GI's character and history, as the Herald Express pointedly is not. When Chris Roberts nearly killed the club, TUST was there to fight against him, expose his lies and ultimately force him out. They're there again now to ensure that GI do not get that chance...Then again if I remember correctly you supported Roberts to the extent that people on here actually thought you were Chris Roberts or one of his associates. You don't have the best record in these matters.

We were being deluged with pro-TUST propaganda across the Forums long before any of us had heard of GI. Trust members or anyone else are entitled to make whatever criticisms of GI they want, but anti Gi sentiment doesn't have to equate as pro TUST, and I'd draw a definite distinction.

I would fully back your advice for anyone to do their own research, DingDong. I've certainly done vast amounts of research on the Supporters Trust movement from the very moment I was suspicious of the Blair Government's motives in setting it up. But yes of course, people should look into G.I just as thoroughly. I, like many others, started off with the TUST member originated writings and leads posted on this site, and through following the leads and checking the credibility and motives of those who produced the articles linked to from the leads, was able to form my own opinion. So I would caution supporters against solely relying on letting themselves get informed by TUST on any matter. Dig under the surface, check for yourselves and then question whether TUST present a fair, factual and balanced account to you on important issues that concern you.

No DingDong, you don't remember correctly as to me ever uttering one word of support for Chris Roberts. It's total codswallop that's been put about recently by some TUST fanatics who have found it convenient to misremember. If you would like to know the sequence of events on which they're attempting to base their lie, then send me a PM, and I'll gladly recount it for you rather than clog up the Forum.

gateman49 wrote: ↑27 Aug 2017, 16:20 Alpine, you really have an issue with TUST don't you.

It would be nice to think that we could all pull together in these difficult times but that would be wishful thinking. Divided, we haven't a chance.

I certainly did feel there was an issue of pro Trust propaganda being put out on Forums with nothing to counter it, and have done what I can to give the other side of the story an occasional airing.

But obviously the decision for one section of the fanbase to break away and set themselves up as potential owners, by definition could have no other outcome than to divide the fans into two separate factions. I think it's very regrettable, but the bunch of militants that engineered that split obviously carry the responsibility.

But lets hope our new Manager is successful, making TUST an increasing irrelevance, as that will mean that the breakaway red agitator group might decide to come back, tails between their legs, and acknowledge that their bid for self importance over the bulk of their fellow fans has ended in failure.

somersetgull wrote: ↑27 Aug 2017, 14:28 They chucked a few quid on the pitch, chucked a few quid on away overnight stops and sorted out transport. Chucked a few quid on new contracts for KN's wonder signings. Chucked a few quid in obtaining boots and laces. So yer expect nothing to be chucked on a decent new manager!

Exactly right somersetgull. The problem is that TUST militants and their sympathisers have been peddling the same line about G.I running the club down via lack of investment, that it's reached the point where they can't change their tune this far down the line. Obviously a Ronnie Moore appointment would see the TUST militants well and truly blown out of the water, and their deceit exposed for good.

Add to that, such a clear demonstration of Clarke Osborne's ambitions for the club would surely force the Council to step up to the plate and play their part. Even if TUST continue behind the scenes in trying to influence the local politicians to hold us back, their obstructionist position will surely soon be untenable.

Easy to see why some people need to convince themselves it won't be Ronnie Moore

Tough away game for sure, but I'm willing to stay ridiculously optimistic during the first week. Shots 0 Gulls 2. Thanks for the thread Ray.

I expect that by bringing Managerial ability into it, all we'll conclude is that we'd be happy for good and talented managers that we approve of to hand out 3 or 4 year contracts, whereas those we don't rate and don't like....well, given the rubbish they're likely to sign, make it 12 months at most.

The point about Hargreaves budget, was the percentage of it already allocated by the previous Manager to players signed by that previous Manager. Hargreaves in the job, but constrained by Knill's decisions determining on who, and in what amounts, it should be spent. Ding Dong might have more inside knowledge about Hargreaves motivational abilities, but it wouldn't take many months before the new players brought in by Hargreaves in the Summer got to find out that the useless Knill signings who were sat in the stands every match day,were earning substantially more than those out on the pitch slogging their guts out for the team. It just has to have a detrimental effect on motivation, and was part of a situation that Hargreaves inherited, and where the blame can't be fairly laid entirely at his door.

Farther up the leagues, a player might only be willing to join on a short contract as he will prefer to move again and collect a fresh signing on fee.
Plus the added bonus that if he's out of contract there will be no large transfer fee to pay (age dependent etc) to acquire his services and so the club signing him can afford to be more generous as regards wages.

I don't see that a black and white rule will be possible to agree on. Different solutions will fit different situations. The much discussed Nathan Blissett situation for instance. Insist he sign a 2 year contract and he wouldn't have extended at all in the Summer of 2016. With the combined talents of Kev, the General Manager, and Clarke Osborne, we surely pitch our contract offers spot on these days

Quite understandable sentiments Fred, but is there really much point in targeting the monkey while the Organ grinder remains in place ?, and with the likelihood that one of a number of identikit Hammond monkeys would just be appointed to perform the same task in the same way.

It is Remainer May who appointed Hammond, and it is Remainer May who allows and ensures that he can carry on in the current fashion.
One scalp will change nothing. Carney at the Bank of England is working just as hard to sabotage Brexit. You're up against a whole Establishment of Remainers, who by their every utterance indicate they're on Brussels side, and will continue to work on the inside to do whatever they can to render meaningless the democratic decision of the British people.