TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Dave_Pougher wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 09:40 On the Torquay Talk forum there’s a suggestion that The Torbay Weekly posted that the Edwards, Hayman bid was the preferred bidders and that was then edited and removed. No great surprise and I do hope it’s wrong but saves me a journey for the last game of the season

I refuse to give my money to an individual that has overseen our demise.

I heard that the Hayman bid was NOT the preferred bidder, but don’t know if this is true. Maybe it’s Pete Masters after all…..

Guess we’ll just have to wait and keep wondering

I’ve heard that there are three firm bids. It looks increasingly likely that TUST is not the preferred bid. From what you’re saying Owlgull, it sounds like the Hayman bid is not the preferred bid either. This means that if there are three firm bids, this mystery third bid, who no one knows and no one has heard about is possibly the most likely to be the preferred bid. This also may be completely incorrect though.

TheYellowFromExeter wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 10:21 I’ve heard that there are three firm bids. It looks increasingly likely that TUST is not the preferred bid. From what you’re saying Owlgull, it sounds like the Hayman bid is not the preferred bid either. This means that if there are three firm bids, this mystery third bid, who no one knows and no one has heard about is possibly the most likely to be the preferred bid. This also may be completely incorrect though.

Genius.

Wouldn't have thought it was TUST. For starters they haven't got the money to cover the bond to the League and show they can cover 12 months expenses. Secondly, the leaders of TUST can't keep their mouths shut despite signing confidentiality agreements. That will not sit well with the Administrators I'm sure.

The Torbay article did NOT name the Haymans as the preferred bidder, it just named hem as one of the bidders

RobinStubbsHero wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 10:34 Wouldn't have thought it was TUST. For starters they haven't got the money to cover the bond to the League and show they can cover 12 months expenses. Secondly, the leaders of TUST can't keep their mouths shut despite signing confidentiality agreements. That will not sit well with the Administrators I'm sure.

Which confidentiality clauses do you think they might have broken? The sellers have no interest in restricting bidders from naming themselves as being in the process.

RobinStubbsHero wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 10:34 Wouldn't have thought it was TUST. For starters they haven't got the money to cover the bond to the League and show they can cover 12 months expenses. Secondly, the leaders of TUST can't keep their mouths shut despite signing confidentiality agreements. That will not sit well with the Administrators I'm sure.

A peculiar statement to make if you don't mind me saying and one that perhaps only serves to mislead fans. Unless of course that is your intention?

Point 1 - Your statements regarding funding / bond to the league - Given the bid was "TUST Led" with a consortium of investors injecting capital alongside TUST, I would hazard a guess that you are factually incorrect. Do you really think a bid would be put into the administrators by a group of astute business people and the TUST Board (not suggesting they are not astute by the way!) unless all the bases were covered. Why would they waste a lot of time and effort if the bid was going to be rejected at the first hurdle. Have you seen a copy of the bid document to verify your assertions?

Point 2 - The leaders of TUST can't keep their mouths shut - I am intrigued for you to back up what you are saying there. What is it that TUST have said that has broken any supposed confidentiality agreements?

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the points you are making, but on the face of it I feel your comments are inaccurate at best and unwarranted at a time when TUST have put their heads above the parapet and have tried to do something positive.

Dave_Pougher wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 09:40 On the Torquay Talk forum there’s a suggestion that The Torbay Weekly posted that the Edwards, Hayman bid was the preferred bidders and that was then edited and removed. No great surprise and I do hope it’s wrong but saves me a journey for the last game of the season

I refuse to give my money to an individual that has overseen our demise.

Dave, good morning, as we all wait and feed on scraps to see who are new custodians are may I suggest you get you poet's head back on and update your ditty on Johnson that follows your postings. New owners maybe a new manager and a new beginning.

Well I'd have thought a confidentiality agreement would mean TUST not even saying they've put in a bid!

Secondly, didn't TUST state they would need £150k from us supporters to fulfil next season's obligations. If so, you'd have thought it obvious they weren't going to satisfy the requirements of having funding in place.

Unless I'm reading it all wrong?

Taelee73 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 12:45 Well I'd have thought a confidentiality agreement would mean TUST not even saying they've put in a bid!

Secondly, didn't TUST state they would need £150k from us supporters to fulfil next season's obligations. If so, you'd have thought it obvious they weren't going to satisfy the requirements of having funding in place.

Unless I'm reading it all wrong?

I would’ve thought that the TUST £150k input would almost certainly have been guaranteed by the consortium until such time that the £150k would have been raised ( or not) via the club shares scheme, and then repaid.

culmstockgull wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 12:09 Dave, good morning, as we all wait and feed on scraps to see who are new custodians are may I suggest you get you poet's head back on and update your ditty on Johnson that follows your postings. New owners maybe a new manager and a new beginning.

Good point well put,

Don’t do it often (previous one mentioned Alex Russel!) but now’s probably the time!

Mysonjackg wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 11:36 A peculiar statement to make if you don't mind me saying and one that perhaps only serves to mislead fans. Unless of course that is your intention?

Point 1 - Your statements regarding funding / bond to the league - Given the bid was "TUST Led" with a consortium of investors injecting capital alongside TUST, I would hazard a guess that you are factually incorrect. Do you really think a bid would be put into the administrators by a group of astute business people and the TUST Board (not suggesting they are not astute by the way!) unless all the bases were covered. Why would they waste a lot of time and effort if the bid was going to be rejected at the first hurdle. Have you seen a copy of the bid document to verify your assertions?

Point 2 - The leaders of TUST can't keep their mouths shut - I am intrigued for you to back up what you are saying there. What is it that TUST have said that has broken any supposed confidentiality agreements?

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the points you are making, but on the face of it I feel your comments are inaccurate at best and unwarranted at a time when TUST have put their heads above the parapet and have tried to do something positive.

In fairness, Taelee73 has answered your post much better than I could have done.
If TUST still have to try and raise £150k , how on earth can this be funding in place. Apart from the fact that, at a guess, that sort of sum is nowhere near enough to cover the seasons expenses, even if operating a part time team.
Secondly, who else has put a bid in? No, I've no idea either. Only because any other bidders have followed the confidentiality clause and kept schtum.

Owlgull wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 12:56 I would’ve thought that the TUST £150k input would almost certainly have been guaranteed by the consortium until such time that the £150k would have been raised ( or not) via the club shares scheme, and then repaid.

For a bid to be considered, I would have thought that any consortium would have to demonstrate that funding was already in place. Such funding would need to place the bond with the League, believed to be in the order of £100k, and sufficient to cover the seasons expenses.
My gut feeling is that TUST are miles away from that as we stand today.

Most likely bollocks, but I’m told one bidder is James Watt, Brewdog. Previously pulled his bid before administration due to an outstanding 500k Covid loan that has now been written off.

RobinStubbsHero wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 15:53 In fairness, Taelee73 has answered your post much better than I could have done.
If TUST still have to try and raise £150k , how on earth can this be funding in place. Apart from the fact that, at a guess, that sort of sum is nowhere near enough to cover the seasons expenses, even if operating a part time team.
Secondly, who else has put a bid in? No, I've no idea either. Only because any other bidders have followed the confidentiality clause and kept schtum.

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?