redundancies

[hector]

I know absolutely nothing of Rugby and make no pretence to the contrary.

You're still not right, I can evidence it further with the likes of Yeovil, but you'll simply continue to whitter on nonsensically about some irrelevancy or another to support your position that the club should bankrupt themselves by sacking a manager 10 games into a season, as if that would automatically see us rocket up the league and see us attract 5 figure crowds.

Matt.

I have not suggested that at all. My feeling is that getting a manager who is not Alan Knill might give us a better chance of not going down.

[supergulls]

The board don't have to forget about them because these people will come and go when they choose and not due to anything the board do to get them in so forget about them and they will come when they want anyway.

I don't get why we got a good attendance for the Oxford game and then the following home game it was poor. Sure Oxford will have taken a few but still, where did all these people disappear to after the Oxford game and why? If they can't take losing ONE game then it's best they f*ck off then and come back when we're winning ( which is kind of the point i'm trying to make). We need more people into Plainmoor on a regular basis win lose or draw and pandering to people that aren't even bothered about us anyway unless we win is not the way forward.

The truth is Andy is that they didn't go missing after one game mate it was a draw with Wimbledon, a defeat by Swindon in the cup, a draw at Morecambe and a defeat to Oxford. It's hardly inspiring form !! The likes of us are hardcore and will follow thick and thin for whatever reasons certain people will not and if they are not enjoying it they vote with their feet.

[ferrarilover]

I have not suggested that at all. My feeling is that getting a manager who is not Alan Knill might give us a better chance of not going down.

And you've been told that, given the cost of sacking Knill, the absolute opposite would be true, yet you keep on and on and on in spite of the facts presented to you time and again.

Matt.

[hector]

And you've been told that, given the cost of sacking Knill, the absolute opposite would be true, yet you keep on and on and on in spite of the facts presented to you time and again.

Matt.

How are they facts, exactly? They are not facts, they are an opinion. The facts are, it could be more expensive keeping Knill (because of fear of a pay-out) than the season-upon-season loss of revenue of non-league football.

Whether sacking or keeping Knill is more likely to keep us up is opinion. Neither are facts because whatever course of action is taken, one will never actually know if the other would have been more successful.

[ferrarilover]

The facts are those which you have been told. Sacking Knill will cost the club money it doesn't have. To recover that money, we'd have to release players and other staff. That action would almost certainly guarantee our relegation. We'd have to run with a squad of 12 players. We'd get two injuries or international call-ups and be in the farcical position of fielding fewer than 11 players in a professional match. We'd be forced to file for administration, we'd be deducted 10 points and we'd likely be investigated by every officiating body going.

Alternatively, we can accept that we're Torquay United and that, in early October, sacking the manager is pure insanity.

Matt.

[tomogull]

Apathy towards Torquay Utd has long been rife in the area. Everyone says it's great that we've got a league club but then are happy to be armchair supporters of Man Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal ..... or the Villa as most of the population seem to have retired down here from the Midlands.

One aspect that has to be factored in is that South Devon is a low wage economy with high unemployment. The Food Banks in the Bay are being kept busy as people's budgets are squeezed especially, I suspect, young families and twenty quid once a fortnight to watch (let's be honest) an uninspiring Div 2 side might be something that has to be sacrificed. I don't know how attendances across the four divisions are this season compared with previous seasons but whilst listening to the Exeter/Argyle commentary in the car on the way to Plainmoor, Gordon Sparkes, bless him ????.commented that the gate for the match was 600 down on last season. That's quite a drop for a local derby.

[westbaygull]

For what it is worth the one member of staff who was made redundant was the club secretary Kerry Haggan and she was given the news yesterday afternoon. I believe two other members of staff have so far been given notice but that was before yesterday.

Very sorry to read this; Kerry has, in my opinion, been a star in the offices and always been very helpful and efficient whenever I've dealt with her. Kerry - if you read the forum still - hope you get sorted with something soon and thanks for everything (spesh the Greavsie pics!!!) xxx

[MidDevon]

I've explained this lots of times but people didn't believe that it was true, Martin and Sean negotiated a contract that was a year rolling contract, this means that whenever the board wished to terminate martins services he always had a year left on his contract so instead of signing a 2 or 3 year contract he just signed a rolling one that he knew he would always get a years salary. The club agreed to this maybe thinking that if he was to sign a 2 or 3 year contract and they did want to terminate it after say a year the club would be no worse off.[/quote]







That may be the case.....but if that IS the case then the terminology is wrong. This type of contract is not a "rolling contract"

A Rolling Contract is simply a contract that continues indefinately until either party decides to end it. If the contract is a 1 year rolling contract then both parties sit down on the anniversary of that contract and have the opportunity to renew that contract or set up a new one with changes, if it is a 3 month rolling contract then that meeting takes place every 3 months

Any pay off, should either party decide to end the contract, would be a seperate negotiaion. A one year rolling contract, if that is what they were given does not mean they get a years pay !

How do I know ? because I have given rolling contracts to people before and have been on one myself

Why is important ? because the difference in potential pay off could vary significantly.

......so if anyone claims that The club could not afford to loose Knill in the future because he is on a rolling contract , that bit at least is irrelevent....what matters is the pay off he would receive in the terms and conditions of his employment should this happen....and the truth of that is probably only known by the "senior" board" and the man himself

[hector]

I've explained this lots of times but people didn't believe that it was true, Martin and Sean negotiated a contract that was a year rolling contract, this means that whenever the board wished to terminate martins services he always had a year left on his contract so instead of signing a 2 or 3 year contract he just signed a rolling one that he knew he would always get a years salary. The club agreed to this maybe thinking that if he was to sign a 2 or 3 year contract and they did want to terminate it after say a year the club would be no worse off.

That may be the case.....but if that IS the case then the terminology is wrong. This type of contract is not a "rolling contract"

A Rolling Contract is simply a contract that continues indefinately until either party decides to end it. If the contract is a 1 year rolling contract then both parties sit down on the anniversary of that contract and have the opportunity to renew that contract or set up a new one with changes, if it is a 3 month rolling contract then that meeting takes place every 3 months

Any pay off, should either party decide to end the contract, would be a seperate negotiaion. A one year rolling contract, if that is what they were given does not mean they get a years pay !

How do I know ? because I have given rolling contracts to people before and have been on one myself

Why is important ? because the difference in potential pay off could vary significantly.

......so if anyone claims that The club could not afford to loose Knill in the future because he is on a rolling contract , that bit at least is irrelevent....what matters is the pay off he would receive in the terms and conditions of his employment should this happen....and the truth of that is probably only known by the "senior" board" and the man himself[/quote]

MidDevon, I'm afraid you are incorrect and Supergulls is correct. A one year rolling contract means there is always a year left. So if the manager is sacked, he gets one years contract worth of compensation and likewise if he is poached, the club get the same.

You suggest that at the anniversary of the one year, the parties sit down and negotiate a new one, well, that is just a straightforward one year contract. It may be different in different industries but I think in football, the contract Supergulls describes are fairly common. Leroy had the same when he was first appointed.

[MidDevon]

Sorry you are both wrong

A 1 year rolling contract does not mean you always have a year left on your contract.


....ever wondered WHY Ling was released when he was? think about when his contract was up for renewal....the club released him in part because it was the cheapest time for them to do so

[rooster]

To clear up any ambiguity Ling had a one year rolling contract so in effect always had a year left, should he be sacked then he would negotiate a pay off or if someone came in for him they would have to negotiate him out of the contract. Whilst technically its a years pay it is negotiated by both parties to come to an amicable agreement. The point this happens makes no difference............

Hope that clarifies it for you.......

[MidDevon]

You also are missing the point, which is quite simply a 1 year rolling contract does not mean that you get a years pay off should the club sack you.....the two things (i.e notice) and rolling contract are completely seperate

I have previously employed over 30 people on rolling contracts so am more than convinced I am right.....

It is an important point because it was all linked in to when the club let Martin Ling go and how much they would need to pay him off

[rooster]

Im only informing you what Lingy had, he always had 12 months left on his contract and as i said he then negotiated his settlement which is normal and quite a common method of employment these days...........

[MidDevon]

Interesting rooster.....I was not aware that Lingy had a full year left on his contract when he was "released"....that is news to me and no doubt many others on here....as he left just prior to his engagement anniversary he must have negotiated this new contract whilst he was off sick.....a fantastic piece of work from Lingy....all credit to him for his negotiation skills

Are you in a position to be able to tell us the terms and conditions of Knills contract as well?

[supergulls]

Sorry you are both wrong

A 1 year rolling contract does not mean you always have a year left on your contract.


....ever wondered WHY Ling was released when he was? think about when his contract was up for renewal....the club released him in part because it was the cheapest time for them to do so

I was saw Martin 3 weeks ago in Torquay and had a lengthy and detailed conversation with him so mid devon I'm not wrong my pal and I know exactly the severance figure that he recieved and it was a full years salary and Sean recieved the same. you can assume and speculate all you want but a lot of other forum members will tell you I only post when I know the facts as I don't assume or make up my own theory's.