Smurthwaite-Norman

Behind-the-Gulls · Post by **Behind-the-Gulls** » 09 Dec 2015, 09:36

Not all the Board necessarily agreed that Nico was the best choice but some Board members are more assertive and hold more sway than others,and,(I understand), two in particular pushed hardest for Nico's appointment and got their way.

Gullscorer · Post by **Gullscorer** » 09 Dec 2015, 10:27

Those two should resign, along with those who let themselves be swayed, and the club should immediately advertise for a rich Arab Sheikh to take over. The current board have cut costs in the club, but they appear to have done little to boost income and investment. They may love the club, but they are as incompetent as the previous lot. The direction in which the club and the team are headed is proof of that.

Unless they know better..

But there is a ray of real brightness: Swindon boss Martin Ling (who, remember, was sacked by Torquay) has made an excellent start as manager at Swindon. Ling is an ex-Swindon player and a club legend there. And he has substantial managerial experience..

Unlike Chris Hargreaves and Kevin Nicholson.

Sesimbra · Post by **Sesimbra** » 09 Dec 2015, 10:42

I agree with Hector's post. A lazy appointment it was.
Jeff - yes every manager has to start somewhere and that should be at the bottom learning his trade before he gets his managership. Is there another trade or profession where an individual comes in at the top as manager?

Gloomy Gull · Post by **Gloomy Gull** » 09 Dec 2015, 13:42

Dazza wrote: Okay this Board appointed Nicholson but we all really know why- they have no damn money.

This repetitive "we were broke from the start" dirge is getting very boring.

OK there was not a huge pot of cash at the beginning - the new Board knew that before they took it on - or their initial due diligence was absolutely appalling and that brings their business acumen into serious question.

Cue the " the previous board promised payments had been made that were not actually made" ....please see above comments regarding business acumen/due diligence. Would you buy/rent a property without ensuring that any of the previous owners unpaid bills did not become your responsibility?

On the subject of Nicholson's appointment - IF there was "no damn money", as is being sold as the reason we took on such a poor rookie appointment, WHY was there more than 1 applicant for the job? UNLESS the Board misrepresented the available salary position in the advert - I am sure they would have advertised the job and not just had the "preferred" candidate lined up?

All comments about DE taking cash for his shares ....I have questioned the need to buy him out in previous posts - especially as there is "no money" .....is smokescreen to try to justify the poor cash position of the club.

I ask again WHY DID HE HAVE TO BE PAID FOR 20% OF THE SHARES, this is NOT a controlling amount and the Board could have said "OK leave and keep your shares for now".

At the moment the administration in all areas of the club is chaotic and we (the fan base) are trying to mask inadequacies across the entire business with the "no money" lament.

We have to face it we seem to be in the grip of the famous Albert Einstein quote "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", and the opportunity to reverse this position is getting further and further away, taking with it our chances of league and existence survival.

Jerry · Post by **Jerry** » 09 Dec 2015, 13:56

It has been suggested elsewhere that Nicholson is on £500 per week. Not a massive amount but also not a pittance so, if correct, this kind of refutes the "he was all we could afford" argument. I'm sure there are other conference experienced managers who would have come for that sort of figure.

Post by **Scott Brehaut** » 09 Dec 2015, 14:24

I'm struggling to understand why this guy, Smurthwaite, who was pretty much the devil incarnate a couple of months ago, along with his reps on this board, is now suddenly being touted as the saviour.

Look at what he wants - he wants the freehold. He's said them himself. Why is that such a deal breaker? We all know why.

I'd rather try and fight our way out another way, to be honest.

Gloomy Gull · Post by **Gloomy Gull** » 09 Dec 2015, 14:38

Scott

No one would want to lose the ground to a developer through choice. But we are fast running out of a credible alternative.

We would have to hope that any deal agreed by the council to sell the Freehold would include a clause to relocate the football club and any SURELY any deal to sell the club would include a clause to provide an agreeable alternative "fit for purpose" ground - a la Yeovil years ago.

arcadia · Post by **arcadia** » 09 Dec 2015, 15:56

Jerry wrote:It has been suggested elsewhere that Nicholson is on £500 per week. Not a massive amount but also not a pittance so, if correct, this kind of refutes the "he was all we could afford" argument. I'm sure there are other conference experienced managers who would have come for that sort of figure.

How do you know it could be a lot less.

Post by **Southampton Gull** » 09 Dec 2015, 16:18

Gloomy Gull wrote: This repetitive "we were broke from the start" dirge is getting very boring.

OK there was not a huge pot of cash at the beginning - the new Board knew that before they took it on - or their initial due diligence was absolutely appalling and that brings their business acumen into serious question.

Cue the " the previous board promised payments had been made that were not actually made" ....please see above comments regarding business acumen/due diligence. Would you buy/rent a property without ensuring that any of the previous owners unpaid bills did not become your responsibility?

On the subject of Nicholson's appointment - IF there was "no damn money", as is being sold as the reason we took on such a poor rookie appointment, WHY was there more than 1 applicant for the job? UNLESS the Board misrepresented the available salary position in the advert - I am sure they would have advertised the job and not just had the "preferred" candidate lined up?

All comments about DE taking cash for his shares ....I have questioned the need to buy him out in previous posts - especially as there is "no money" .....is smokescreen to try to justify the poor cash position of the club.

I ask again WHY DID HE HAVE TO BE PAID FOR 20% OF THE SHARES, this is NOT a controlling amount and the Board could have said "OK leave and keep your shares for now".

At the moment the administration in all areas of the club is chaotic and we (the fan base) are trying to mask inadequacies across the entire business with the "no money" lament.

We have to face it we seem to be in the grip of the famous Albert Einstein quote "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", and the opportunity to reverse this position is getting further and further away, taking with it our chances of league and existence survival.

That has to rank as one of the most ill-informed and inaccurate posts I've read in a long time.

Gloomy Gull · Post by **Gloomy Gull** » 09 Dec 2015, 19:01

Dazza · Post by **Dazza** » 09 Dec 2015, 19:34

Is it constructive -no. Does it cheer anyone up when we all so down- God no. Does it have it have any real facts in it -no.

There must have been worse. Just can't remember them....

Neal · Post by **Neal** » 09 Dec 2015, 19:46

Selling the freehold NO WAY! Only to TUST and that's with clauses. The difference is that TUST is a democratic organization and any future pressure to sell for a quick profit would have to be voted on. DONT UNDERESTIMATE any individual who wants the freehold as part of owning the club, it can ONLY lead to one thing, the sale of the ground. I would rather be in the Southern Premier league than see the club go down that route! Its best kept in the hands of the council.

Look, going back 12 or 13 years MB used to post on these boards, he was hammered by the posters at that time, not me by the way. Maybe some of you I don't know. He ran this club on a budget and kept us in the league (just I know).He was lambasted for not having any ambition but he was a business man and knew that football is an endless pit with regards money, if you let it be. So something has changed since those times. Well one thing that has changed is the introduction of wealthy owners coming in at non league level, Crawley, Newport, Eastliegh come to mind but there are more. Competing with these is very difficult, can be done yes, but it means getting the exact mix of owners, management, fans, players and luck. If you get 2 out 4 of these no way, if you get 5 out 5 you got a chance.

I think (I DONT KNOW OF COURSE) that we will be relegated again this season. But its not the end, of course its not, there are plenty of teams lower down the ladder who would agree with me, ah ask Buckland Atheltic, It just means the task is harder, you either face up to the task OR you give in because YOU cannot handle it.

Gloomy Gull · Post by **Gloomy Gull** » 09 Dec 2015, 22:56

[quote="Dazza"]Is it constructive -no. Does it cheer anyone up when we all so down- God no. Does it have it have any real facts in it -no. [quote]

Does it ask questions - yes. Has anyone refuted any of the thoughts contained in it to bring cheer to this desperate situation- God no. Has anyone provided any facts to rubbish the questions/views raised - no

I ask again WHY???

Post by **Southampton Gull** » 09 Dec 2015, 23:11

A simple read back through the thread will give you most of the answers. You're so wrong I can barely be bothered to reply.

Gloomy Gull · Post by **Gloomy Gull** » 10 Dec 2015, 13:45

Thanks for your comprehensive rebuttal of the points I made SG.

A simple read back through the thread will give you most of the answers. You're so wrong I can barely be bothered to reply.

This suggests that you have a more significant and in depth knowledge than I on the current situation. I appreciate that you may be in a such a privileged position that you are precluded from breaking confidences and using information you may have that would clarify the circumstances behind curiosities such as, the Managerial appointment (Question - was there a preferred candidate at the outset?). If you want to trot out the "no money" defence, could you please explain why so many others applied for the job if it was made clear to all that there would be no money and probably a minimal salary.

The same applies to the need to have to pay for DE's shares - perhaps you have had an inside view of the Shareholders agreement?

I have, as you suggested, re-read the thread and cannot find most of the answers as you suggest - perhaps you have greater insight than I, or perhaps I am not reading between the right lines??

From my analysis of the thread -

90% of Page 1 takes the view of "why not sell if there is a possible buyer"

- "snatch his hand off", "hope the current incumbents not too stubborn to consider a serious takeover", "pray nobody's ego or greed stand in the way of a deal", "no evidence he wants to turn the ground into a pot of gold", "under current regime (board and management ..game is up", "grasp at any straw", time to push all in and take the gamble", "sell Bristow's Bench to Excretia and build flats" I think that was an ironic comment !!!!.

40/50% of Page 2 follows the Page 1 thread-

"anything will do", "praying Norman wants in", still a chance to avoid relegation if action taken now", need a miracle or White Knight pretty quickly"

The only comment on that page that appears to allude to any of my queries is "Gateshead haven't had to pay Judas Edwards £25k for free shares (sic)". But that does not really answer the WHY did the Board HAVE to pay him out for the shares?

I am genuinely waiting for you to adequately show that the comments and queries I included in my posts are indeed "so wrong".

Waiting patiently for a comprehensive response, with rationale, to prove I am way off the mark in my assessment of the last 6+ months.

Love you xx

Torquay United Fans Forum