Fans Forum-TONIGHT. Doors open 6pm for 7pm start

[PhilGull]

I would like to see some form of fan ownership but I think a more continental model of a paid membership or TUST owning 51% would perhaps be better than 100% TUST ownership.

[gullpower]

I would like to see some form of fan ownership but I think a more continental model of a paid membership or TUST owning 51% would perhaps be better than 100% TUST ownership.

I think a lot of TUST members (and maybe even the board) would agree with you. The continental 50 + 1 model allows the supporters to keep control of the club while allowing other investors to put money in. These investors cannot gain control of the club so would only invest if they had the club's best interests in mind. The club is therefore protected from sharks and property developers.

[Rjc70]

EDITED

[Rjc70]

50+1 has a lot of merit. You'd probably still get a few concerned about freedom of choice if you can't sell on to property developers, though.

[ferrarilover]

TUST would run the club within a budget that the club generates from income. Might that mean we operate part time or in a lower league so be it.

The alternative hasnt been that successful either. You need a very wealthy individual to pump in £100's of thousands every blimmin year with no guarantee of success. Thats what Thea did, and that didnt work.

There might be one of these people of course but aint seen one yet.

Like much (all) of the TUST proposal, this is beautiful on paper but unworkable in reality. You'd be lucky to run a Toolstation league side on the money we generate presently. Thing is, Toolstation league sides don't generate the money that we do, so we'd have only enough to run a Sunday league side. Thing is, Sunday league sides don't generate the money that Toolstation sides do. And so it goes on forever.
Self-sustainability could only ever be achieved for us if we moved to a new ground which we owned and which had bundled with it many and various alternative income streams. The 1500 or so Torquay supporters cannot fund the business. What we need is to get a hotel, a gym, some restaurants, a dozen 4G pitches hired out, conference facilities etc. What's that, ten million pounds? TUST going to fund that, are they?

A bunch of well intentioned but poorly financed and talent limited fans owning the club under the TUST banner sounds frighteningly like the present setup of well intentioned but poorly financed and talent limited fans owning the club.

If TUST want to help (I'm sure they do), they need to act as a sounding board. They need to give up this preposterous notion of owning the club and dedicate their efforts to representing the fans' concerns and interests throughout the process of the impending sale.
If they were to approach the Board on this basis and offer themselves up on this basis, they'd certainly encounter less resistance than presently they are experiencing.

Matt.

[PhilGull]

Like much (all) of the TUST proposal, this is beautiful on paper but unworkable in reality. You'd be lucky to run a Toolstation league side on the money we generate presently. Thing is, Toolstation league sides don't generate the money that we do, so we'd have only enough to run a Sunday league side. Thing is, Sunday league sides don't generate the money that Toolstation sides do. And so it goes on forever.
Self-sustainability could only ever be achieved for us if we moved to a new ground which we owned and which had bundled with it many and various alternative income streams. The 1500 or so Torquay supporters cannot fund the business. What we need is to get a hotel, a gym, some restaurants, a dozen 4G pitches hired out, conference facilities etc. What's that, ten million pounds? TUST going to fund that, are they?

A bunch of well intentioned but poorly financed and talent limited fans owning the club under the TUST banner sounds frighteningly like the present setup of well intentioned but poorly financed and talent limited fans owning the club.

If TUST want to help (I'm sure they do), they need to act as a sounding board. They need to give up this preposterous notion of owning the club and dedicate their efforts to representing the fans' concerns and interests throughout the process of the impending sale.
If they were to approach the Board on this basis and offer themselves up on this basis, they'd certainly encounter less resistance than presently they are experiencing.

Matt.

So how do all the smaller clubs with less fans coming through the turnstiles that finish above us every season manage it? Do they all have generous benefactor owners ploughing hundreds of thousands of pounds into the club every year?

[ferrarilover]

Yours is a question with many answers. I'll have a quick to stab at as many as I can stand.

The first answer is probably the one you have explored yourself. Yeah, a whole host of these clubs do have people in the background underwriting losses of a few hundred thousand pounds a year. Spread between a few people, it's not an insurmountable sum, especially not if it comes from a business and is a decent way of streamlining one's tax affairs.

Other clubs near big cities, especially London, are free to go part time and pay virtually nothing. One of the chaps at Braintree (striker, could probably do a job in L1, but stays at Braintree instead), makes £150/week playing football and £75k driving a cab. Try that down here and see how you get on.

I suspect that a number of other clubs have fans more willing to spend money, so although there are fewer of them, their spend is higher. Half our problem is that our supporters are either kids or pensioners. Not the two groups in society known for having high disposable income. Even the working age types we do get are working in a high cost of living but low wage area.

I do rather suspect that these places also have commercial departments which do not and have never featured Dean **** Edwards. I once took a solid gold investor to the commercial department. I'd pretty much brokered the deal. All Edwards had to do was pick up the phone and make a call and a modest but worthwhile five-figure sum would have been on its way. Did Edwards make that call? Of course he **** didn't.

Some of these other clubs do get a chunk of luck from time to time. A long forgotten player making the big time or a decent Cup draw or whatever. Exeter, of course, are a prime example.

It's a tough one to answer accurately without A) knowing exactly which clubs you're talking about and B) investing a level of time into research which I can't really be arsed to make and which the question doesn't necessarily warrant.

In truth, it doesn't matter about anyone else, what matters is us and we simply could not run a club on what we generate today, let alone what we'd generate two or three years from now.

Matt.

[Glostergull]

well I agree with Matt. we cannot afford to run a club. but i don't see any problem with owning shares to help run the club. unless the test want it all
I do wonder how Exeter work theirs. they seem to have quite healthy crowds and I can imagine that makes a big difference. but do they have forms of income stream they we don't. could we ask them for any ideas. No one has asked that question yet

[Rjc70]

Are you suggesting we close the doors then, Matt, as it sounds as if we're damned by your analysis whatever the ownership, barring seriously big money taking our struggling club on. You are very good on paper saying we are perennially screwed, but factoring TUST out of your equation would also lead down the line of your Toolstation League analogy with just those factors you list.

As always, of course, there are other factors. You can decide on them. I know from your earlier post that you regard fans as 'really worthy, but worthless really', but maybe for example, they are just one of those many factors? No? Ok, then.

I hope the new owners, whether it be one of the ones we are currently negotiating with, the GI 'loan arrangers' (or TUST and other fans coz nobody else would do it), don't completely share your nihilistic/pessimistic view, because much of the pint sized analysis you make - whilst being dismissive of others, as ever - has been our lot for quite a decent portion of our existence, yet we remain. Though with that GI repayment hanging over us, presently.

[Rjc70]

I do wonder how Exeter work theirs. They seem to have quite healthy crowds and I can imagine that makes a big difference. but do they have forms of income stream they we don't. could we ask them for any ideas. No one has asked that question yet.

Maybe not on here, but yes, that has been asked of Exeter's trust. Previous owners and our own trust have done this. I'd hope the current owners also have, but I can't be as certain of that as I am of the others.

[gullpower]

I do wonder how Exeter work theirs. they seem to have quite healthy crowds and I can imagine that makes a big difference. but do they have forms of income stream they we don't. could we ask them for any ideas. No one has asked that question yet

There's a chapter on Exeter in Punk Football: The Rise of Fan Ownership in English Football by Jim Keoghan.

It's a good read for any football supporter and gives a balanced assessment of fan ownership, looking at the advantages, disadvantages, case studies where bad owners have bankrupted clubs as well as good owners and yes, at clubs like Telford, where after a period of trust ownership had saved the club, they VOTED to revert back to a private ownership model. It's probably not for those that have already made up their mind but for those with an open mind who want to know more about the philosophy and practicalities of how supporter ownership can work it's ideal.

For the detractors of TUST it might be an idea to read it so that you know what's in store for when a community share issue by TUST is the only thing that's going to save TUFC.

[S4fedr1ve]

Oh come on let's not look too deeply into the Exeter situation. Trust or no trust they would have dissapeared a long time ago without some lucky cup draws and one or two big money transfers. Yes maybe they made there own luck but nothing you can rely on.

[gullpower]

Oh come on let's not look too deeply into the Exeter situation. Trust or no trust they would have dissapeared a long time ago without some lucky cup draws and one or two big money transfers. Yes maybe they made there own luck but nothing you can rely on.

That's true. But would they have been in existence to get those lucky draws and have the big money transfers if the supporters trust had not saved the club?

In an ideal world one of the hovering prospective buyers will purchase the club, have pots of money to spare and pump shed loads of cash into the club. But why would they? It's such a difficult ask to make a profit at Torquay.

They could of course accept investment from the supporters trust in return for seats on the board. One name omitted from the list of clubs where supporter ownership works was Swansea where supporters own 21% of the club and have two representatives on the board.

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-facts-and-history/

[ferrarilover]

Are you suggesting we close the doors then, Matt, as it sounds as if we're damned by your analysis whatever the ownership, barring seriously big money taking our struggling club on. You are very good on paper saying we are perennially screwed, but factoring TUST out of your equation would also lead down the line of your Toolstation League analogy with just those factors you list.

As always, of course, there are other factors. You can decide on them. I know from your earlier post that you regard fans as 'really worthy, but worthless really', but maybe for example, they are just one of those many factors? No? Ok, then.

I hope the new owners, whether it be one of the ones we are currently negotiating with, the GI 'loan arrangers' (or TUST and other fans coz nobody else would do it), don't completely share your nihilistic/pessimistic view, because much of the pint sized analysis you make - whilst being dismissive of others, as ever - has been our lot for quite a decent portion of our existence, yet we remain. Though with that GI repayment hanging over us, presently.

You've totally misunderstood (or misrepresented) what I've written previously.

I don't dismiss what some others say, I just disagree with it which seems to offend, despite that being the very reason this place exists (as I am so frequently being told).

We don't need megabucks. We're not in need of Scrooge McDuck and his swimming pool of dubloons, just another Mike Bateson or Paul Bristow.

I keep saying (and despite lots of noise, no one actually argues sensibly any different) that TUST simply cannot afford to buy and run the club. They can't maintain it at its current level, nor could they reasonably hope to run us at the level below. If two or three back to back relegations and park football is the best they can manage, then we're much better off as AFC United of Torquay.

Neither solution is ideal. What remains our only real hope is not the TUST, but the present owners. We must hope (maybe even trust) that they will sell the club to the right people. We are no less a viable investment or project than any other club around and I don't see too many of them being mothballed as part of some evil property developer's mad bid to build huge, multi-use stadia all over our green and pleasant land.

Matt.

[PhilGull]

I think TUST 'could' afford to run the club, but, and it is a big but(!) ALL of the potential revenue options need to be opened. I don't know if it's the fault of the current board, or whether they just got off on the wrong foot will Dean Edwards running things to start with but they have not done nearly enough to maximise the clubs income.
If the club positioned itself in the centre of the South Devon community and actually encouraged local people to get involved then I think we could do quite well with the TUST in charge.