TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Of course the answer is yes, everybody knows the answer is yes. The problem is finance, would any of you have a spare £1k, or £10k you'd put towards the compensation package? No, because if you did, you'd be part of the board, and that 'spare' cash would then be tied up in the club. I long for the day I log on to the OS and the 'Knill Sacked' headline appears. But that is only going to happen when the people who have tied their hard earned(or fortunately won) cash into the club that they love just as much as the rest of us do, decide that the cost of sacking him is preferable to the cost of relegation, at the point at which relegation becomes more likely than survival. At the moment, relegation is staring us in the face with it's arm pulled back. It's just a case of whether it throws the punch and when that happens.

nickfrench82 wrote:Of course the answer is yes, everybody knows the answer is yes. The problem is finance, would any of you have a spare £1k, or £10k you'd put towards the compensation package? No, because if you did, you'd be part of the board, and that 'spare' cash would then be tied up in the club. I long for the day I log on to the OS and the 'Knill Sacked' headline appears. But that is only going to happen when the people who have tied their hard earned(or fortunately won) cash into the club that they love just as much as the rest of us do, decide that the cost of sacking him is preferable to the cost of relegation, at the point at which relegation becomes more likely than survival. At the moment, relegation is staring us in the face with it's arm pulled back. It's just a case of whether it throws the punch and when that happens.

The board have loads of money to fund Knill's loans don't they?

wodger of awabia wrote: The board have loads of money to fund Knill's loans don't they?

Are you really that clueless about our situation and what the manager has had to do to change the playing staff?

Southampton Gull wrote: Are you really that clueless about our situation and what the manager has had to do to change the playing staff?

Exactly Dave. The number of our players out on loan, McCullum was replaced by Marquis not because of an injury, but because he cost a fraction of the price.

Feel free to stick £10k in the pot though wodger, and raise the money yourself.

You'll be banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain the facts on here

Southampton Gull wrote: Are you really that clueless about our situation and what the manager has had to do to change the playing staff?

Well the loan players represent a cost to the club most likely far in access, of what we are getting from Bideford, Hereford, etc. so the Board must be "putting their hands in their pockets" to fund these loans.

Ok, I accept you now understand nothing about the clubs finances.

I do apologise (sincerely) for the tone of my replies to you. I'm just more than a little peeved about the whole situation right now, nothing to do with our league position, I feel that can be overcome with a little bit of good fortune. I genuinely apologise for appearing to take that out on you.

nickfrench82 wrote: Exactly Dave. The number of our players out on loan, McCullum was replaced by Marquis not because of an injury, but because he cost a fraction of the price.

Feel free to stick £10k in the pot though wodger, and raise the money yourself.

If Knill had not destroyed Lings team & made a few poor signings then the club would not have to fork out for all these loans. At this rate we will have used around 40 players by the end of the season, & some of them are not as good as our own players IMO

...and why exactly do we need all these loan players? Because the signings Knill made were not good enough in the first place.

Why sign Courtney Cameron, if you are going to players like Azeez?

Why sign Karl Hawley if he becomes 4th choice striker within 3 months of the season starting?

Who else did he sign? Oh, Krystian Pearce, another benchwarmer.

Knill is just guessing his team. How much money has he wasted signing players on two year deals and then not playing them? Persisting with Knill is just throwing good money after bad. At some point you need to say enough. Winning, well never, and being bottom of the league is plenty enough in most people's eyes. Hence a sevenfold times bigger vote for get rid than keep. But the handful, supporting Knill are peddling this financial misnomer from a supposed lofty perch of superiority when there is not even financial sense, let alone footballing sense for persisiting with Knill.

If the board of directors, as a collective, voted to employ him, on the luxury of a two year deal, perhaps they owe it the club they support to rectify their error. Or their stupidity.

Southampton Gull wrote:Ok, I accept you now understand nothing about the clubs finances.

I do apologise (sincerely) for the tone of my replies to you. I'm just more than a little peeved about the whole situation right now, nothing to do with our league position, I feel that can be overcome with a little bit of good fortune. I genuinely apologise for appearing to take that out on you.

No problem,but I do feel with all these changes that Knill is fiddling whilst Rome burns.

A lot of the changes have been forced on him though. I don't even know why it always feels like I'm supporting him, I'm no happier than anyone else about the situation we're in but I can see so many reasons why this has come about and a lot of them are not simply down to the manager. He's had to overcome a lot of things people seem too ready to forget.

Anyway, enough from me, I'll leave everyone to their public lynching. When Knill has gone and his successor does no better and then drops the bombshell about what he's had to put up with and why he has to leave etc etc I'll remind everyone of this time, just like I did when people were celebrating the sacking of Ling. Be careful what you wish for.

Forced on him was the signing of O'Connor for Downes and even then we missed him for 2 games to international call ups.

The rest of the signings were either not needed whatsoever or just to cover for some atrocious signings IMO.

The only bit of credit I can give Knill is that I'm glad a couple of his loanees got some goals otherwise we could be looking at being adrift even now.

I'll put this to bed because I'm bored with reading it, if I'm honest.

Our loanees cost, as near as makes no difference, nothing. Nil. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

All this old shit about there being money for loanees has been annoying me for weeks now, but I've let it go because, well, I don't feel the need to state the obvious all too often and I figured someone would stumble upon the correct (and BLATANTLY obvious) answer eventually, but it seems that was too much to ask.

There are plenty of us on here who are trying to gently nudge the rest of you towards the correct answers, but it seems that you're all so blinded by rage (or Football Management 2013) that you simply can't see it. So, there it is in plain and simple English. Take it or leave it. Given the record this board has, I expect it to be thoroughly left. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant about how shit Torquay United is after all...

Matt.

Matt, I'm not even fussed about the money it's that I believe these loanees (O'Connor excepted) weren't needed and disrupted the team even further. Even now he plays O'Connor instead of Pearce and I don't know why. If it has something to do with Pearce not being 100% or whatever then maybe some info would be good. If Pearce is fine then I see no reason to persist playing O'Connor, promising player that he is.

It's not about how much the loanees cost if any but that there are too many of them and they aren't fitting into an already disjointed team. All we seem to be doing now is adding strikers for a month or so, seeing if they can get us more goals than we concede and then they return to be replaced by someone else who Knill hopes will suddenly be the answer to all our prayers and score 40 in 7 games or something.

Chill out mate and have a chamomile like me. :~D :na: