TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

SBP wrote:Just wondering what others thought about Cox's formation and style because i dont know if Im the only one but i didnt like it one bit. I liked Cox's honesty and Im sure he was a descent bloke but i really didnt think his football was effective based on performances and results. I know we will never know but just how long was he going to persist with his formation? Just watching the pre season stuff against Plymouth and Yeovil you could see that we were going to have problems.
I was at the Galmpton pre season friendly and i only watched Exodus for 5 minutes and was concerned. I like having fullbacks that can be positive offensively but surely there first job is to defend.

I'm with you on this. The formation hasn't worked and as proof, we have conceded more goals than any other team in the league. Out of curiosity, I looked back to the last time we played with two wing backs - Gibbs and Gurney when Kevin Hodges was manager. I couldn't remember playing with three central defenders but actually we did - Jamie Robinson, Alex Watson and Jon Gittens. The difference was that Alex Watson, although not the world's most cultured central defender, nothing much got past him and he was a born leader/organiser in the mould of John Terry. Jamie Robinson was probably the most skillful of the three, bit like Nathan Smiith, and Jon Gitten was definitely a 'no nonsense' defender, rather like Angus.

Also, those five players played virtually every game together that season - Robinson and Watson were 'ever presents', Gittens missed one game (probably suspended !), Gurney missed two games and Gibbs missed five. Gurney and Gibbs scored 16 league goals between them. Mind you, we also had Rodney Jack and Steve Mc.Call, a skillful midfield player, in that side. They were good days ! Anyway, the point of this post is that the three central defenders were very well organised which is the difference with what we've seen this season.

WBW - in all fairness blaming Torquays demise on someone calling you an arsehole is pretty wide of the mark. I don't think any of the posters on here signed the like of Tonge, Hawley etc etc etc, paid them over inflated salaries and the went on to compound the mistake by employing shit managers and paying them over inflated salaries.
Grow a thicker skin.

wbw wrote:Sorry, but over and out from me.

If that's the sort of person who calls himself a Gulls fan, then no wonder we are in the mess we are.

I have to say that I was rather suspicious of WBW when he/she first posted on the Forum immediately after the departure of Cox and Edwards, but I slowly realised that the posts made a great deal of sense.

I do remember that defense Tomogull and you are very right they were a very good unit. I just want our back line to be defenders firstly and if the fullbacks are able to offer something in attack then great. While watching the friendlies we were giving so much space away and it was obvious the midfield would struggle. Why didnt PC change things to a more conventional 4-4-2??
I just dont think PC was as switched on as some may think.

Rjc70 wrote:Any new ownership needs to address those issues in it's business planning, as ownership of the freehold is not a panacea that will paper over the cracks of any failing business. Rent paid to the Council is nowhere near being a key feature in our recent financial history. Nor is rent for premises a key feature determining most businesses success or failure. I can see the argument that it is a red herring for land grabbers to hold onto. Unless wbw wants to counter argue or elaborate upon his assumption that nobody in their right minds would invest in a business without owning their commercial premises?

I've given a very basic sample answer in my last post of the question he posed regarding potential owners who some might regard as having the Club's commercial and footballing interests higher up the agenda than land ownership.

I know where your coming from Rob, I'm not trying to put an argument, or even suggesting your wrong, I know you, I know your background and I'm pretty sure you have by a greater knowledge of these subjects than I do.

For me Torquay United right now doesn't need 10's of thousands investing in it, it needs closer to the millions mark, unless there's a mega rich oil baron out there looking for a little play thing, then surely we have to look at Torquay United as a football club and where it is today, as well as what it could be in the future, as an investment opportunity.

The main product of the business is the football, it's a product our own fans are not buying right now, so how can you drive additional income into the club, at plainmoor over and above what it already does, the opportunities are very limited.

You could open a self storage facility, where, ok, what about a small Travelodge, premier inn style hotel, where, ok what about community training pitch's, where, all is not lost, what about the good all retail units, even if there was the room, hardly prime location with no parking, so who would rent them, but, at the end of the day the club can't so it's non-starter, it would have to move to a different location for these things to happen.

With out, as said above by kitrobin, the protection of the freehold, what exactly would a potential investor be investing in ? In my very humble opinion "debt" and no ones going to do that.

Also in my opinion it's no good any TUFC fan harping on about this 1800 break even gate figure, if at the end of the season we end with average gate dead on 1800, then the clubs lost money, it needs money to re-invest, also it's no good having a gate of 2500 one week, and 1100 the next, cash flow.

The only way our current ownership can truly guarantee keeping a potential wolf from the door, is for the 500 or so fans who are staying away, on some kind of misguided the football rubbish so I'm going anymore protest, to start going back and watching , supporting the club again, the club actually needs gates up around 2,300+ at the very minimum to push forward again, this realization needs to strike soon.

Added in 6 minutes 12 seconds:

wbw wrote:Sorry, but over and out from me.

If that's the sort of person who calls himself a Gulls fan, then no wonder we are in the mess we are.

Not having a go at malagagull or anyone else, all wbw was trying to do was engage in a debate, and actually made some sensible points, he/she really didn't deserve that, reaction from some.

It's funny whilst Cox was here everyone was treading on eggshells in case anyone said anything against the manager it seems that a lot of us kept quiet and suffered watching the games. Cox had the idea of three centre halfs and stuck with it. Hurst can't defend but is great going forward he could be good behind the two strikers we need him in the game more. We do need four at the back with these players.

Because most of us realise the importance of unconditionally supporting our club right now.

Really cannot see what "wbw" has posted that has been found so offensive by malagull to be honest.

It is his (wbw's) opinion that for any owner to invest in TUFC then they would want to own the freehold of Plainmoor. Not unreasonable surely. The freehold was owned by the directors of TUFC until some time in the 70s I think it was when we were so skint that Tony Boyce sold it off to the Council in order to raise the necessary funds to keep the club alive. So, it's not exactly ground breaking stuff is it!

Likewise, it was always a major frustration of Mike Bateson that he was never able to buy the freehold of the ground back - he tried several times during his tenure - but the Council always asked for too much money! He always felt that it hampered the progress of the football club as he wasn't prepared to keep building new stands and developing the ground if he didn't actually own it.

My goodness, it was only as recently as February/March of this year when Thea Bristow was approached by Gordon Oliver about TUFC buying Plainmoor and she went on record as saying that it was something they would like to do too and she probably would have done if Mayor Oliver hadn't of done a complete u turn days later and withdrawn the offer.

Personally speaking I don't care who owns the ground as long as there is a (better) future for TUFC. Likewise I wouldn't object to the ground being sold off for development as long as we moved to a better, purpose built stadium elsewhere in the Bay such as the land set aside at the Willows which would be ideal for a new ground. All of this would carry just the one proviso ... that it is done in the interests of the football club.

I can understand why any football fan is always wary when developers/speculators move in as there is always the possibility that they will destroy the football club but that is not always the case and it appears in this instance that "wbw" does have a genuine affinity to TUFC anyway!

Like Dave (Forever) says, the idea that there is another Thea Bristow out there who is ready to throw millions at the football club simply for the love of it is highly unlikely. If we are to progress we need investment and we need it quickly - the current Board have not got the means, I would suggest, to turn this club around enough to give us a chance of a return to the Football League, because realistically that would take a lot of money - money they don't have. At the moment, they are trying their very best to stabilise it and we can only hope that they are successful and that we at least retain our position in the National League Premier.

Whether we like it, or not, we are probably going to have to accept that as a direct consequence of any new investor coming in we may well have to accept that they will, in return, want to get their hands on Plainmoor. Of course, there are risks attached to that, but if we want a brighter future it may well have to be the price we have to pay - we can only hope that whoever our next owner is has the best interests of TUFC at the forefront of their plans.

I know that TUST have stated that they would like to buy the freehold of the ground and "protect" it from unscrupulous developers which is all very admirable but you do have to ask yourself - how realistic is it that they will be able to raise the necessary funds? I don't know the figure that Torbay Council want for it, but I have seen a figure of £250k mentioned, I don't know how accurate that is but just say it was right - do we really think that they could raise those sort of monies in these times of austerity? I'm not saying it's impossible but it would certainly be a tall order! There is also a danger that by securing the freehold, the TUST drive away any of the "money men" who might have been interested in developing the ground and relocating elsewhere.

I know Chris Roberts turned out to be a complete and utter disaster, but I will be the first to admit that actually some of his plans did appeal to me at the time - it was just the wrong people at the wrong time and probably the wrong location.

One final thought, and I confess I do not know too much about rugby and the history of Exeter Rugby club but my limited understanding of their history is that what twenty years or so they were on a par with Torquay Athletic club. They however did have the good fortune of owning their own ground and were able to sell it for a small fortune - they also had a wealthy backer with a vision - and so Sandy Park was born and they are now established as one of the top teams in the land and regularly get gates of 10,000 or so - dwarfing what Exeter City get. Nobody, but nobody, would have believed that possible back in the 80s and 90s - but with a combination of a wealthy backer and a development opportunity they have become hugely successful and are a lesson to all the football clubs in the Westcountry of what can be achieved with a little ambition and a vision.

As I said previously this message forum leaves a lot to be desired. Why would any potential investor, which there are out there,, want to invest in Torquay united after reading this forum?

forevertufc wrote:Because most of us realise the importance of unconditionally supporting our club right now.

Why is Chris Hargreaves getting paid still and we wasnt paying Paul Cox anything but expenses?

kevgull wrote:

Exactly ....and because others ....some new posters are behind the screens trying to destabilize the supporters and thereby the club using a kind of good cop bad cop routine to get supporters to go along with them.....Best if they came clean now because if God forbid they do get their hands on TUFC how do they then expect us to keep supporting.

George wrote:As I said previously this message forum leaves a lot to be desired. Why would any potential investor, which there are out there,, want to invest in Torquay united after reading this forum?

I don't see what you're getting at - sorry. 99% of those who post on this Forum are dedicated United fans and we're genuinely very worried about the future of the club many of us have been supporting for decades. We may well come to the wrong conclusions but we are entited to our views and ideas. Some may post their views more forcibly than others, whilst occasionally there is personal abuse which most of us steer well clear of. If there are investors out there, I'm sure the Board and the fans would glady welcome them ....... IF they wish to invest for the benefit of Torquay United and not for their own personal gain.

George wrote:As I said previously this message forum leaves a lot to be desired. Why would any potential investor, which there are out there,, want to invest in Torquay united after reading this forum?

Well if there is somebody out there, and this person(s) chooses to read the fans forum before making a decision, i'm sure they will be intelligent enough to see past all this 'stadium asset' and 'value of land' b*llocks sh!t stiring from a bunch of waste of oxygen scum bags

George wrote:As I said previously this message forum leaves a lot to be desired. Why would any potential investor, which there are out there,, want to invest in Torquay united after reading this forum?

Why?

Because if they were buying/investing into the club for all the right reasons, they would be welcomed by all (I would hope).

The reason why I am so wary is because I don't want the club to be bought by property developers that are simply buying the club to get at the land etc, and whilst there are, I'm sure, genuine investors out there, there are also people hovering around that have the wrong intentions. Given that almost all the "new" posters on here have raised the land issue, you can, surely, understand the wariness of some on here.

As all fans of the club will know, we've been somewhat through the mill recently and we simply want our club to turnaround and flourish again - we want people to invest, yes, but only the "right" people.

My ire hasn't been aimed at any particular poster (though I do know who almost all of the new posters are), but simply in general - if you are on here simply to bang on about buying the land etc, or arguing amongst yourselves about who each of you are etc, do it elsewhere.

If you are here (again generalising) to discuss the club, like the majority of the fans are doing so on here, then you are indeed, in my eyes anyway, more than welcome to stay.

Added in 2 minutes :

moneylife wrote:Why is Chris Hargreaves getting paid still and we wasnt paying Paul Cox anything but expenses?

After the interview with Steve Breed yesterday on the BBC website, I don't think he is now as the club and he have come to an agreement.

He was still being paid up until recently as he was contracted to the club and, therefore, it had to be honoured.

PC wasn't being paid as we couldn't afford to pay him.