SBP wrote:There are suggestions that Exodus is currently playing with an injury. But Cox seemed to build his formation around him and i couldnt understand why. Surely Jamie Richards was a better option.
Probably due to his throwing ability, it's not a usual skill and it upsets some defences. Remember Stoke back in the Rory Delap days.
Its a fair point, however how many goals have we scored due to these throws and more importantly how many goals have we conceded with him being out of position while taking a throw in. I guess that doesnt really matter because we are just leaking goals all over the place with him in there. Id rather forget the long throw to be honest and shore up our defence.
Delap did have the unique ability for the long throw but he could defend also.
No player should get in the team just because he has a good throw......
Exodus is a stereotypical looking centre half but he's lacking mobility, skill, vision, an ability to pass and positional sense......other than that.....he's great lol
Incidently, Stoke are a lot better since they've ditched the long throw tactics.
TUFC never fails to let its fanbase down.
27/08/18 - Time to step back from this shambles and focus on things in life that make me happy. TUFC doesn't.
Rory Delap was also a very good footballer (something most forget) but even if he wasn't it's a lot easier to carry a winger than it is a central defender. Weaking the team in such an important position is crazy.
Gary Johnson's Yellow Army! Yellow Army! Yellow Army!
Before anyone jumps on my case again (and becomes offensive) may I state that I am not a property developer and have no interest in building houses on the site.
Nor is anyone else I suspect and therein lies the problem. The site is actually not worth a lot in developing terms. The days of a DIY shed or supermarket paying over the top are long gone and affordable housing (for that is what would be built in that area) is not lucrative enough to develop.
The point about the freehold is key to the problem however. Who in their right minds would effectively donate huge sums of money into a project they did not own. Forget the stands as a realisable asset - that's just plain crap - if you don't own the house you don't get a mortgage on it.
So WBW wants any new owner to borrow against the freehold and the useless worthless stands....sorry is that so they can rack up even more debt and leave up in a bigger pile of poo.....Just jog on Simples
Unfortunately wbw has a good point, there does not appear to be a mega rich Torquay fan out there, who no doubt would put their money in right now to save the football club. For an investor without the connection to the club to put their money in, with the club exactly as it is, with out the freehold would be tantamount to investing in debt, no ones going to do that.
If we want an investor on board, think there's a relevant saying 'pays money, takes your chance'
wbw wrote:The point about the freehold is key to the problem however. Who in their right minds would effectively donate huge sums of money into a project they did not own.
It is possible to own a football club without owning its ground. It's the case up and down the country in fact. And has been so at our Club well before recent history.
In a broader commercial sense the vast majority of companies in the UK do not own the freehold to their premises. Many will also derive income from customers on site every day as part of that business, albeit you can still obtain preferential rent and take the share of the gate in football, in case that's the point you are trying to make.
In answer to the question you pose, a single owner/consortia/trust or combination of the three as owners keen on the football and commercial side flourishing, and not just interested in the freehold of the ground, is certainly one answer I could give you, wbw.
Last edited by Rjc70 on 24 Sep 2015, 13:07, edited 2 times in total.
This site is for TUFC fans or did you not realize that....not people pretending to be so keep your opinions to yourself as we are not interested... Simples
Trouble is how do you get the commercial side at Torquay flourishing to the point that other clubs have, we have attendance figures dropping like a stone, apart from some empty office space and a gym, what else is there at the club, apart from a perhaps underused no10's.
The clubs is struggling, our fans know our club is struggling, it should be all they need come and back the club, but they still don't come, if you can't sell any aspect of the club to your own who's going to buy, with out the freehold.
forevertufc wrote:Trouble is how do you get the commercial side at Torquay flourishing to the point that other clubs have, we have attendance figures dropping like a stone, apart from some empty office space and a gym, what else is there at the club, apart from a perhaps underused no10's.
The clubs is struggling, our fans know our club is struggling, it should be all they need come and back the club, but they still don't come, if you can't sell any aspect of the club to your own who's going to buy, with out the freehold.
Any new ownership needs to address those issues in it's business planning, as ownership of the freehold is not a panacea that will paper over the cracks of any failing business. Rent paid to the Council is nowhere near being a key feature in our recent financial history. Nor is rent for premises a key feature determining most businesses success or failure. I can see the argument that it is a red herring for land grabbers to hold onto. Unless wbw wants to counter argue or elaborate upon his assumption that nobody in their right minds would invest in a business without owning their commercial premises?
I've given a very basic sample answer in my last post of the question he posed regarding potential owners who some might regard as having the Club's commercial and footballing interests higher up the agenda than land ownership.
Last edited by Rjc70 on 24 Sep 2015, 13:19, edited 2 times in total.
Rjc70 wrote:
It is possible to own a football club without owning its ground. It's the case up and down the country in fact. And has been so at our Club well before recent history.
In a broader commercial sense the vast majority of companies in the UK do not own the freehold to their premises. Many will also derive income from customers on site every day as part of that business, albeit you can still obtain preferential rent and take the share of the gate in football, in case that's the point you are trying to make.
In answer to the question you pose, a single owner/consortia/trust or combination of the three as owners keen on the football and commercial side flourishing, and not just interested in the freehold of the ground, is certainly one answer I could give you, wbw.
I do agree Rjc, but it's hardly an attractive proposition as it stands. I would assume from the various noises coming out re breakeven figures that the club is still losing money every week. If the breakeven figure is 1800, a shortfall of 300 punters at £20 average spend is a fairly serious deficit before even factoring in the payment of a manager and his assistant.
