TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

[hector]

I wonder if TUST could produce a similar survey along the same lines that they could also present to the council.

[merse btpir]

Plainmoor is only inadequate in the instance of a major cup tie needing to be staged at the ground.........Saturday's 'impressive' turn out was still less than 75% of the total capacity.

......and seeing as this club hasn't manage even a single FA Cup win in (is it?) three seasons; it's hardly a top of the agenda.

Only if the club managed for the first time in it's history to put together a consistent level of performance in League 1 making promotion to the Championship a possibility, would the perceived 'inadequacy' of Plainmoor come into question. You ain't going to fill it up in either the National League or League 2!

So the manner in which the survey words the subject is duplicitous in the extreme as indeed is the question "Do you visit online fans forums and, if so, do you find them useful? " because obviously those 'visiting' fans forums do find then useful. It's almost as if they're trying to comfort themselves with answers of 'nope; never read them.............they're full of poison' eh Tabby?

I'm left feeling there's still an awful lot of pennies that need dropping around TQ1 way

[merse btpir]

I wonder if TUST could produce a similar survey along the same lines that they could also present to the council.

There's the on-line petition doing that already........the club won't get over six thousand people replying to their survey will they!

[Rjc70]

There's the on-line petition doing that already........the club won't get over six thousand people replying to their survey will they!

Perhaps we will all end up being very surprised at the number of people who consider that we need a new stadium.

Are the results getting published? Viewing the results might inform those being consulted on the five year plan.

[Glostergull]

Just a quick thought, but as this leading survey is trying to shape the answers they are getting. who actualy owns the bowling club building and who gets the income from it ?
There is room around the stadium to take advantage of extra revenue streams but space is badly wasted. I wonder why better use was not made of the spaces at all.

[SenorDingDong]

I wouldn't worry too much about the statistics being used to justify GI's position of a new stadium, all it would take is the TUST/the fans forums stating that the way the survey is worded is leading and that while they fully agree in the long run a new stadium would be beneficial (and no one is denying that), the terms of which GI are inevitably proposing are not acceptable, nor would leading Plainmoor beforehand be acceptable. This heads GI off at the path and is entirely factual, no matter what a survey might state.

The only acceptable way would be if the club owned the stadium and it's revenue generating facilities - which we all know would never happen even if GI were intending on building a stadium...which they're not.

[midtable]

The freehold is now up for grabs on the 26 July and this is just a ploy to try to keep people involved rather than contacting the mayor Gordon Oliver by phone to voice their disagreement (http://www.torbay.gov.uk/DemocraticServ ... px?UID=131). Actions speak louder than words and remember no money was provided for extra players before the transfer deadline closed.
If a new stadium is built on prime council land along with a lot of houses then fine sell the freehold but not until then. The reason? We can be kicked out of Plainmoor when they choose due to any excuse such as low attendances due to lowly league position especially if they decide at some point in the future we go part-time.
If the prime council land is not gifted to them to build a housing estate then obviously the new stadium stops as well. The way to get your money back then has been demonstrated up and down the country. They can sell the ground to themselves via another company name and then charge us a steep rent forever. This is also why contract deals with food outlets and the bar will be possibly renegotiated. Not to give the club more funds but because the standard practice is that when the parent company buys the freehold and charges rent they also collect the profits on the food and drink!

[gullpower]

The survey is an opportunity to get a message across to GI. Two of my comments began "TUFC does not need a new stadium..."

[merse btpir]

The only acceptable way would be if the club owned the stadium and it's revenue generating facilities

Which is rather missing the point that 'the club' is owned by GI..........

Any stadium ~ whether it be Plainmoor or some hypothetical new one ~ needs to be owned by the local authority or left in trust to the supporters who would need to form a specific trust for that purpose. A stadium owners trust where each individual shareholder commands just one vote irrespective of their total shareholding and to facilitate that a module needs to be set up whereby a purchaser of the freehold acquires it and treats their acquisition as a 'soft loan' to that specific trust....the trust then buys back from the purchaser in the same way that a mortgage is paid off from a bank/building society. It can be a long process and to give you some idea the Chelsea Pitch Owners have only now paid off less than 25% of the initial purchase price of Stamford Bridge that Ken Bates (Chelsea Village) paid £10 million on their behalf in 1997. The CPO then in turn granted the club a 199-year lease on Stamford Bridge at a peppercorn rent.

This is the only way to ensure that the ownership of the freehold guarantees it will not be used for monetary gain leaving the football club potentially homeless in the future.

[Baegull]

What's all this about being unable to develop Plainmoor ? I recall Bateson stating that the popside was deliberately manufactured to be able to grow. I presume that means taking the roof off and extending the terrace back towards the road, and why can't we do the same with the away end - it takes up about half the space going back to the lane..... and before someone mentions the neighbours - they can have no legal objection and bought a house next to a football ground so have to put up with such improvements.
As for parking and sustaining league football - it did OK for the previous 90 odd years.

[Tarrboy1]

The survey is an opportunity to get a message across to GI. Two of my comments began "TUFC does not need a new stadium..."

Completely agree with this. We're being given an opportunity to feed back our opinions directly to GI and as many of us as possible should do that.

You dont have to over analyse the leading questions - just fill the comments boxes up with facts about GI's previous record and how that should not be allowed to happen again etc etc. There doesn't appear to be any restriction on how much you can write (I wrote loads).

[Fonda]

If 100 people give them the answers they are looking for, it’d surely be better if there are 100 people offering an alternate view? If 100% of respondents reply as they want us to…

[Wraysburygull]

Yes,it's the comments sections that are important to us contributors.A pint bet anyone that the comments don't see the light of day ? They will just be scoring the answers to Q11

[SenorDingDong]

Which is rather missing the point that 'the club' is owned by GI..........

Any stadium ~ whether it be Plainmoor or some hypothetical new one ~ needs to be owned by the local authority or left in trust to the supporters who would need to form a specific trust for that purpose. A stadium owners trust where each individual shareholder commands just one vote irrespective of their total shareholding and to facilitate that a module needs to be set up whereby a purchaser of the freehold acquires it and treats their acquisition as a 'soft loan' to that specific trust....the trust then buys back from the purchaser in the same way that a mortgage is paid off from a bank/building society. It can be a long process and to give you some idea the Chelsea Pitch Owners have only now paid off less than 25% of the initial purchase price of Stamford Bridge that Ken Bates (Chelsea Village) paid £10 million on their behalf in 1997. The CPO then in turn granted the club a 199-year lease on Stamford Bridge at a peppercorn rent.

This is the only way to ensure that the ownership of the freehold guarantees it will not be used for monetary gain leaving the football club potentially homeless in the future.

Quite. In an ideal world that would be the way to go. When I mentioned 'owned by the club' I meant an independent club, free of GI, which isn't going to happen any time soon. However a fan's trust owning the stadium would be the absolute ideal situation. So long as it required a supermajority of 60%+ to be able to agree to any contentious development activity that may involve said fan's trust - otherwise it can be at risk of well organised minorities highjacking it without properly representing the majority of the fanbase.

As for parking and sustaining league football - it did OK for the previous 90 odd years.

The commercial environment of the game has changed rapidly over the last 20/25 years. The days when wages were capped and the club could survive off gate receipts and a smattering of commercial activity on top of it are long gone.

[MellowYellow]

Yes,it's the comments sections that are important to us contributors.A pint bet anyone that the comments don't see the light of day ? They will just be scoring the answers to Q11

Ain't that the truth in a nutshell