TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Attendance levels simply do not come in the equation, when we're talking about a clubs ability to sustain successes at any level.

For evidence lets look at league 2 lasts season, the top three average attendances were;

Portsmouth 16,394
Plymouth 8,798
Luton 8,225

None gained promotion to League 1, yet Northampton ran away with the league 2 divisional title with an average gate of 5,278.

Then we can look at Accrington with an average 1,834 , 32 higher than our own from last season, and, but for hitting the post twice in their last game would have been promoted automatically to League 1, York were relegated with an average of 3,228.

Then we look at last season conference, the top 4 averages were as follows.

Tranmere 5,214
Wrexham 4,616
Grimsby 4,357
Cheltenham 3,005

As we know Cheltenham won the league by a distance, and Grimsby the play-offs, neither of the top 2 on gates were promoted, Kidderminster were relegated with a higher average than our own, and an average gate more than double the bottom 4 on attendances, so it really doesn't follow that size of gate automatically means the club concerned has more resource, and should define one club as bigger than another in view.

Surely the point being missed here is; Income and running costs, gates are only a part of a football clubs income, Barnet Fc are prime example of how a football can be successful coupled with small gates; http://thehivelondon.com/ and why Dave Phillips is right to suggest a new stadium as the way forward for TUFC, with the revenue generated for the benefit of the club of course and not someone else.

In our league there can be a massive difference between a full time football club relegated from the league and a part-time club that's never been in the league in terms of overheads, whilst the part-time club may not generate as much income, they can have much lower overheads.

Think I'm right in saying, a club coming out of the league are governed by many of the football leagues commitments such as the stadium green guide, which mean segregation, and greater match day security, being full time, you can end up in situation like TUFC did with Luke Young, a player injured all season, still receiving his basic wage, and the club having to fund a replacement, with part-time clubs often your paid when you play.

Geographical location can help, not in favour of training in Bristol or London and playing in Torquay, but it does mean TUFC can not really go part-time unless we do go down that road, the pool of part-time players around these parts is small, in number and quality, that's one advantage smaller clubs can have closer to the M4 corridor and London.

Always believed it's not about how much resource a club has, or does not have, it's about what the club does with the resource it has, think it's fair to say our club has wasted a pot load of money over the last 5 seasons, and never seemed to realise the number one priority was to maintain our league status and the believed £600k income before a ball was even kicked that came with it.

It's down to, two things, either our income is low, or more likely our clubs overheads in trying to sustain a full time club, at this level, and in this area are too high, an average gate of 2,500 is bottom 5 in League 2 now, and I'm guessing an entry level playing budget for league 2 is somewhere around, going up towards £2 million, is it down to funding at lower league has moved on, and TUFC has been left behind ?

But as I've said it's not about looking back, it's about moving forwards, that's why if we want to see our club back in League 2 and competitive, sadly Plainmoor is no longer the answer, we can not rely solely on gates to fund our club, a new stadium which allows to generate extra income along the lines that Barnet do, in the link above is the answer in my view.

The ground has supported League football for 80 years. it isn't the reason we are where we are. That is down to simple lack of ambition and piss poor management over the last several years. Our ground can support us in our quest to regain our league status and although I agree it would be of more benefit long term we simply don't have the investment to make it viable. GI was a total waste of time and another piss poor decision made by the chairman.

Forget crazy ideas about a new stadium, investment is needed on the playing front first and foremost. Once we are heading the right way up the table and please God regain our League status then and only then should we start looking for a new ground. It's a complete non-starter without running the risk of charlatans like Clarke Osborne taking over the club. Geoff Harrop needs a good kick in the nuts for bringing those miscreants into our midst on the back of personal ambition. He doesn't care for the club any more than his father in law, deluded men with self-interest at the root of their land deals, the club were just a mere inconvenience.

Dave Phillips needs to concentrate on making us look like a professional outfit instead of embarrassing us with piss poor decision after piss poor decision.

forevertufc wrote:Attendance levels simply do not come in the equation, when we're talking about a clubs ability to sustain successes at any level.

For evidence lets look at league 2 lasts season, the top three average attendances were;

Portsmouth 16,394
Plymouth 8,798
Luton 8,225

None gained promotion to League 1, yet Northampton ran away with the league 2 divisional title with an average gate of 5,278.

Then we can look at Accrington with an average 1,834 , 32 higher than our own from last season, and, but for hitting the post twice in their last game would have been promoted automatically to League 1, York were relegated with an average of 3,228.

Then we look at last season conference, the top 4 averages were as follows.

Tranmere 5,214
Wrexham 4,616
Grimsby 4,357
Cheltenham 3,005

As we know Cheltenham won the league by a distance, and Grimsby the play-offs, neither of the top 2 on gates were promoted, Kidderminster were relegated with a higher average than our own, and an average gate more than double the bottom 4 on attendances, so it really doesn't follow that size of gate automatically means the club concerned has more resource, and should define one club as bigger than another in view.

Surely the point being missed here is; Income and running costs, gates are only a part of a football clubs income, Barnet Fc are prime example of how a football can be successful coupled with small gates; http://thehivelondon.com/ and why Dave Phillips is right to suggest a new stadium as the way forward for TUFC, with the revenue generated for the benefit of the club of course and not someone else.

In our league there can be a massive difference between a full time football club relegated from the league and a part-time club that's never been in the league in terms of overheads, whilst the part-time club may not generate as much income, they can have much lower overheads.

Think I'm right in saying, a club coming out of the league are governed by many of the football leagues commitments such as the stadium green guide, which mean segregation, and greater match day security, being full time, you can end up in situation like TUFC did with Luke Young, a player injured all season, still receiving his basic wage, and the club having to fund a replacement, with part-time clubs often your paid when you play.

Geographical location can help, not in favour of training in Bristol or London and playing in Torquay, but it does mean TUFC can not really go part-time unless we do go down that road, the pool of part-time players around these parts is small, in number and quality, that's one advantage smaller clubs can have closer to the M4 corridor and London.

Always believed it's not about how much resource a club has, or does not have, it's about what the club does with the resource it has, think it's fair to say our club has wasted a pot load of money over the last 5 seasons, and never seemed to realise the number one priority was to maintain our league status and the believed £600k income before a ball was even kicked that came with it.

It's down to, two things, either our income is low, or more likely our clubs overheads in trying to sustain a full time club, at this level, and in this area are too high, an average gate of 2,500 is bottom 5 in League 2 now, and I'm guessing an entry level playing budget for league 2 is somewhere around, going up towards £2 million, is it down to funding at lower league has moved on, and TUFC has been left behind ?

But as I've said it's not about looking back, it's about moving forwards, that's why if we want to see our club back in League 2 and competitive, sadly Plainmoor is no longer the answer, we can not rely solely on gates to fund our club, a new stadium which allows to generate extra income along the lines that Barnet do, in the link above is the answer in my view.

With a couple of caveats. You are right it is about income and not actual gates. But usually, but not always as you have described the 2 go hand in hand. If its true, I have no reason to believe its not that you need an annual income of 2 million now to compete at league 2 then yes we have been left behind. But again it isn't that simple, because to get to anywhere near 2 million you need investment, AND as MB stated many moons ago investment in football terms is not the same as a normal business because there is a strong possibility that if you do pump x millions the returns don't happen. Football history is littered with examples. The problem with piss poor management IS that you don't know IF it is "piss poor" until after the event. When we get a new manager, look at the forum, some will think he is the best thing since sliced bread and some wont. Well some will be wrong and some right. Its a lottery because you cant even go on the CV, that's why so many managers get sacked, they don't live up to it.

Bl**dy nightmare being on the board of a football club if you ask me, because you will never invest enough for some, and if you lose 3 or 4 on the trot, well god help you.

Its VERY easy to spend someone else's money. The problem is football has become a play thing of the wealthy, a status thing, and it will never be the same, the landscape has changed. The probability of us regaining league status without a rich benefactor is low, NOT impossible but low. Just the way football is now, IT HAS CHANGED!

forevertufc wrote: But as I've said it's not about looking back, it's about moving forwards, that's why if we want to see our club back in League 2 and competitive, sadly Plainmoor is no longer the answer, we can not rely solely on gates to fund our club, a new stadium which allows to generate extra income along the lines that Barnet do, in the link above is the answer in my view.

The arguments for a new ground make sense and I quoted the example of Barnet's new ground on another thread where they seemed to move seamlessly from their old ground to a spanking all-purpose new one. But MellowYellow put me right. It wasn't as simple as that - far from it in fact. The ground was originally being built for Wealdstone F.C. but the investment partners went into liquidation. Harrow Council put the site up for tender and Barnet F.C. won the right to occupy the site. So it was a unique opportunity (thanks for the info by the way, MellowYellow) which couldn't possibly come our way.

Getting hold of the freehold of Plainmoor, thus allowing development, and then build a new stadium which is what those charlatans Gaming International wanted to do must never happen. There are plans to re-develop several areas in Torbay and there could be mileage in incorporating a new ground into these plans with the development being carried out by a reputable company such as MacAlpine or Galli-whatsit who built the Kingskerswell bypass, not dodgy chancers like Clarke Osborne & Co. Personally, I'm not convinced a ground at the Willows would be the ideal site. It gets very busy around there on a Saturday and the addition of football traffic would make it even more congested, plus there are even more Cavanna little boxes being built. Strangely enough, the off-street parking around Plainmoor seems to work well (as long as people's drives aren't blocked), although I doubt the residents would agree. Yes - a new ground with added facilities, but with grass like wot they've got at Barnet - not plastic - would be ideal, but it's a chicken and egg situation and I tend to agree with Soton Gull. We have to get things right on the pitch (which I believe Nico is doing) AND off the pitch before we can start thinking about a new ground.

It would be nice to see the Council and club working together with a third-party to build a new stadium and re-develop Plainmoor for the mutual benefit of all involved.
An outside company coming in and taking the freehold of Plainmoor as GI wanted is neither the only option nor the best.

Most excellent, these are the types of posting that actually gets us somewhere, no one is slaughtering anyone else, everyone is being reasonably constructive. I can see why the break even figure has been revised upwards, bear in mind all the season tickets, roughly 1100, now no longer put money through the gates each week, that season ticket money has obviously been spent.Therefore last season, our break even of 1800 minus 600 season tickets left 1200 paying on the gate, this season, that twelve hundred paying ,plus our eleven hundred season tickets of this season equates to the figure that Dave Phillips now mentions.
I would like to draw your attention to the North Ferriby fans forum, the club is owned by the grown up children of the Hull owner, now according to the fans forum, these owners have asset stripped Ferriby to within an inch of its life and I am not sure they had that much to start with, so we are not alone in suffering from poor owners in the past.
As a commercial entity i do not see how a new stadium will magically alter our fortunes to any great extent, yes an artificial pitch can be used seven days a week but there is no life changing revenue there, the odd concert,not a great success so far, but enough of that, whether we like it or not the money is in corporate hiring, our local hotel makes more money in hiring their communal rooms out during the day for company training days than they do from room booking. We need to adapt to succeed, everyone seems to be in general agreement that we have no god given right to be anywhere other than where we now find ourselves, we do our bit by turning up each week, players fund support etc, and that gives us the right to moan, complain and generally be positive or negative depending on our mood at the time.
By becoming a director or chairman you effectively promise two things , firstly your stewardship will be the best that it can be and secondly you will do everything you can to take the team forward and be successful, whilst I gratefully acknowledge the first in saving the club, I have deep reservations about the second having been anywhere near achieved. I would rather see a director who has little or no money but a lifetime of experience in say accountancy than a director who promises wads of cash and then closes the wallet as soon as its needed.

Southampton Gull wrote:The ground has supported League football for 80 years. it isn't the reason we are where we are. That is down to simple lack of ambition and piss poor management over the last several years. Our ground can support us in our quest to regain our league status and although I agree it would be of more benefit long term we simply don't have the investment to make it viable. GI was a total waste of time and another piss poor decision made by the chairman.

Forget crazy ideas about a new stadium, investment is needed on the playing front first and foremost. Once we are heading the right way up the table and please God regain our League status then and only then should we start looking for a new ground. It's a complete non-starter without running the risk of charlatans like Clarke Osborne taking over the club. Geoff Harrop needs a good kick in the nuts for bringing those miscreants into our midst on the back of personal ambition. He doesn't care for the club any more than his father in law, deluded men with self-interest at the root of their land deals, the club were just a mere inconvenience.

Dave Phillips needs to concentrate on making us look like a professional outfit instead of embarrassing us with piss poor decision after piss poor decision.

fred disley wrote:As a commercial entity i do not see how a new stadium will magically alter our fortunes to any great extent, yes an artificial pitch can be used seven days a week but there is no life changing revenue there, the odd concert,not a great success so far, but enough of that, whether we like it or not the money is in corporate hiring, our local hotel makes more money in hiring their communal rooms out during the day for company training days than they do from room booking.

As a general point, not all meant in response to your post.

A new stadium in the obvious location already known about, for a start gives the club a much better and more accessible location. Your right in saying there's money to be made in corporate hiring, there is office space at the ground and no 10's, but there's also a huge problem, the location of Plainmoor is pants, with no parking, who's going to want to use Plainmoor as venue, or rent office space when there's better locations available.

A new stadium down at the willows with potential car parking, and a fast route in now from, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Paignton becomes a lot more attractive.

An artificial pitch is going to cost probably upwards £500k the club can't afford to install one at the current ground, but it would be including in the build cost of a new ground, wouldn't it, and NO I would not and do NOT want a new ground built under the same terms as the G.I deal, however if a new ground could be built under the terms recently suggested, where by a developer built the ground for the club, that would be owned by the club, in return for prime land elsewhere, where the developer made their money, and then yes, this would be attractive for the club, in my opinion.

So an artificial pitch at a new ground, for a start would guarantee no postponements, there is additional cost to every game called off, so in return reducing the clubs overheads, it could also be hired out, covering all maintenance costs , plus a small profit for the club, there's a huge benefit already, and there's shortage of winter training venues in this area for local clubs.

Could a no 10's style restaurant at a new ground at the willows location be open for more days during the week and be better used than the current one, highly likely, bringing in more revenue, as would a fitness suite open for hire, to the community the community at large.

This may be pie in the sky and may never happen, but I do not see where the investment is going to come from to bring the club back to a level where by it can compete at League 2 or a level above, remember the club was only promoted back last time thanks to the generosity of the Bristow family, and the club ran at significant loses for 5 seasons.

Plainmoor may have sustained league football in the past, but as I've suggested and believe I'm right, funding at lower level has changed, average gates are higher and growing, players at that level want higher wages and longer contracts, there are less and less clubs in League 2 getting sub 3,000 average gates, the funding gap between the lower end of the football league, and the conference is huge, and getting wider, with T.V money that filters down to the bottom of the football league and no lower.

Unless there's a super rich man out there, quite happy to lose some money each season, don't see how our club can or will grow, unless the club can increase it's revenue away from just gate money and sponsorship. Phillips and co have made mistakes, but there not millionaires, they have to run the club in the black for it to survive, which means sub standard players.

And we're relying on the manager to find, young, raw, hungry players who will develop, and hope season on season, the club turns out another MacDonald, so in my view, we're going have take what's on offer for a while to come.

Lots of what has been said in this thread is excellent reading from proper fans with the Club at heart.
However why can some see that a new ground is 100% not the answer.

To say that because the Willows is easier to get to than Plainmoor, attendances will rise or a fastfood joint or a multiplex cinema, meeting rooms and a plastic pitch will save the Clubs fortunes, come on get real. Remember Darlington.

The only thing that raises money is good products that the public want to watch, and when there is nothing else to occupy them.

Did anyone note that Wigan v St Helens Rugby League game was NOT on TV on Friday for the first time in donkeys years...........why ? Because the Man Utd v Southampton game was on.

Conference football must be played when the public can access only conference football. Very hard to do now I except. Does anyone know why all the Conference midweek games coincide with Champions League nights? That will take hundreds off a gate I'm sure.

It is time the Conference as a whole stood up to the FL and Prem. Saturday night football or Sunday afternoon football and midweek games when there is no European stuff.

And also tell the Police to stop charging astronomic fees for their "presence"

Rant over.

As always, SG and Forever are absolutely spot on.

In regards to the travel club, it is totally discourteous that the current board does not support the travel club just because a 'high up' member of staff has a problem with the organisers. Graham Riley works bloody hard driving here there and everywhere for Torquay United supporters to get to the away games, whilst Mark Shepherd works 24/7 running his hotel and still finds time to organise the trips, get people booked on and go to the games himself. The amount of hard work that these two gentleman put in to run the travel club gets totally ignored by the club and it is wrong.

and his coaches get there !!!!!!!!!!! lessons to be learnt.....

dannyrvtufc4life wrote:As always, SG and Forever are absolutely spot on.

In regards to the travel club, it is totally discourteous that the current board does not support the travel club just because a 'high up' member of staff has a problem with the organisers. Graham Riley works bloody hard driving here there and everywhere for Torquay United supporters to get to the away games, whilst Mark Shepherd works 24/7 running his hotel and still finds time to organise the trips, get people booked on and go to the games himself. The amount of hard work that these two gentleman put in to run the travel club gets totally ignored by the club and it is wrong.

And you're also spot on, Danny. It's all about COMMUNICATION with those who have the club's interests at heart. I don't know why it is, but Board members (it's not only David Phillips) seem to want to have nothing to do with supporters, the Travel Club and even TUST who they seem to have wanted to keep at arm's length until Mr Osborne disappeared over the horizon. I make no apology for mentioning Steve Breed again, and Andy Candy before him. I don't know about their support for the Travel Club, but there was certainly much better communication with the fans and TUST.

To be fair, no one, myself including is talking about 25,000 capacity stadium along the lines of Darlington, no one is talking about cinemas, or fast food joints, that be would totally unrealistic, and never feature in any plan.

Winning teams do put bums on seats agreed, but no where near enough, 2009 promotion season gave an average gate of 2325, the 2011 season that saw in contention from automatic promotion to League 1 right up until the last game gave us an average gate of 2,869, between 500-1000 more than last season, yet during the course of those 5 seasons back in the football league, our club had an average gate of over 2,500 each season, but we still saw Thea Bristow write off £3 million in debts she covered.

What does that us ? what should be telling us ?

Not all of that money went on pay offs and the ill fated training ground. It should tell us the costs of sustaining a successful football club in this area off attendances and sponsorship alone are too high and not achievable.

Would attendances increase if the club moved down to the Willows, probably not, all that's being suggested, and I agree with is, that a new stadium that clearly would cut overheads and increase revenue that Plainmoor can't do, would in turn make our club more sustainable, and would help support the managers player budget, is one way forward.

Buy a better team, nice, where's the money coming from as the club stands now ?

Ok lets apply that logic for a second. Where is the money for a new ground coming from?

We are simply not in a position to even think about a new ground. We can't even sort out a coach to get to away games .................

Dave, I never suggested it would come from the club, the club couldn't afford to build a new ground. This is the suggested that I was referring in my above post; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37032121 of course may never happen, but this is one thing I think Dave Phillips is right about.

I have a feeling your not going to agree