TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

Post a reply

Smilies
:goodpost: :lol: :rofl: :goal: :scarf: :keepie: :clap: :bow: :engflag: :-P :) :-D :nod: ;-) :-/ :( :'( :Z :@ :| :oops: :yellow: :red: :O :whistle: (*) (8) (D)
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by gullpower » 09 May 2017, 16:19

Plainmoor78 wrote: 09 May 2017, 15:29 I would agree that the club needs added revenue streams, but why does it have to be a new stadium. I would have thought a new training ground with 3G pitches and other facilities which could also be used by the general public would be cheaper and of more value to the local community.
There is simply nothing wrong with plainmoor. All it needs is for somebody to work out
how to maximise income from what is already there.
Plans for the proposed new stadium reportedly include a hotel and retail outlets. The town is awash with disused hotels and vacant retail outlets; how is that supposed to raise revenue for the club. The stadium, if it was ever built is simply a property developers means to an end. The whole idea of property development is to build something whether it is needed or not, and whether it is suitable or not; remember coral island?

In fact the best way to fight GI's plans may be to undermine the case for a new stadium.
:goodpost:
We won't win over the mayor but we can raise the profile of the issue of the sale of the lease by continuing to email councillors and candidates in the General Election. The meeting to discuss the sale of the lease is now on Monday 24th July.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Plainmoor78 » 09 May 2017, 15:29

I would agree that the club needs added revenue streams, but why does it have to be a new stadium. I would have thought a new training ground with 3G pitches and other facilities which could also be used by the general public would be cheaper and of more value to the local community.
There is simply nothing wrong with plainmoor. All it needs is for somebody to work out
how to maximise income from what is already there.
Plans for the proposed new stadium reportedly include a hotel and retail outlets. The town is awash with disused hotels and vacant retail outlets; how is that supposed to raise revenue for the club. The stadium, if it was ever built is simply a property developers means to an end. The whole idea of property development is to build something whether it is needed or not, and whether it is suitable or not; remember coral island?

In fact the best way to fight GI's plans may be to undermine the case for a new stadium.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Gullscorer » 09 May 2017, 14:58

Exeter Chiefs announce plans for new £25m hotel at Sandy Park: http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-chiefs- ... story.html
They're in Rugby Union's Premiership, of course. When we reach the giddy heights of such a stratosphere at Plainmoor (e.g. top of League One), then perhaps will be the time to think about a new stadium and developments. After all, Plymouth Argyle are now back in League One and are still waiting for their new grandstand. And Exeter City are still waiting for a new away end..
:~D

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by westyorkshiregull » 05 May 2017, 07:47

Neal wrote: 03 May 2017, 18:43 POSTED THIS MONTHS AGO!

The business model will be, make money on the land at Plainmoor, what ever way they can.

Build a new stadium, owned by some company owned by Osbourne. They will then get rid of the club to whoever (could even give it away), BUT the rent will be extortionate and will be on a short lease. All the other enterprises at the so called stadium will also pay rent to GI, NONE of that money will come to the club. The clubs revenue will depend on us the fans and the new owners generosity. its simple and obvious.

If that penny aint dropped yet, you are so naïve it beggars belief.

We will see if Im right in good time
Well done for stating the obvious...that not sarcastic by the way!!!!

It's Looney tunes to think anything else , as osborne says he is not a football fan but a but a business man! , not alone a torquay united fan with the club at heart.

Once his nails are firmly gripped on this new stadium god help us. No longer a secure and reasonable rent to pay with a decent lease but instead it will be that dodgy landlord we have a had where rents only increase, any income will be passed through his lap first and of he was still controlling football club it would starved of any squad investment

DON'T fool for the propaganda talk of this club moving t
Up the league's and this that and the other. Shown there bloody hand in April with 1 goalkeeper and semi retired manager on the bench consisting of 4 bottoms.

Watching that last game on video it's a ground to be proud of and I hope it stays that way. What a insult to demolish that lovely new stand.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by standupsitdown » 05 May 2017, 06:53

The purpose of this survey is simply to show that fans want a new stadium, with questions loaded to produce the required results. It's a common tactic.
They will get lots of people saying yes it would be a good idea but not thinking through the downside. Other clubs have done the same.
We need an independent survey with neutral questions as anything set up by the owners will be biased to the outcome they want.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Southampton Gull » 03 May 2017, 18:55

You're wrong. The ground will never come across the Severn Bridge ;-)

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Neal » 03 May 2017, 18:43

POSTED THIS MONTHS AGO!

The business model will be, make money on the land at Plainmoor, what ever way they can.

Build a new stadium, owned by some company owned by Osbourne. They will then get rid of the club to whoever (could even give it away), BUT the rent will be extortionate and will be on a short lease. All the other enterprises at the so called stadium will also pay rent to GI, NONE of that money will come to the club. The clubs revenue will depend on us the fans and the new owners generosity. its simple and obvious.

If that penny aint dropped yet, you are so naïve it beggars belief.

We will see if Im right in good time

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by MellowYellow » 03 May 2017, 17:41

Wraysburygull wrote: 03 May 2017, 14:55 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

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by SenorDingDong » 03 May 2017, 17:06

merse btpir wrote: 03 May 2017, 07:52 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.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Wraysburygull » 03 May 2017, 14:55

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😡

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Fonda » 03 May 2017, 13:19

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…

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Tarrboy1 » 03 May 2017, 13:07

gullpower wrote: 03 May 2017, 05:49 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).

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by Baegull » 03 May 2017, 12:47

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.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by merse btpir » 03 May 2017, 07:52

SenorDingDong wrote: 02 May 2017, 22:56 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.

TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

by gullpower » 03 May 2017, 05:49

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

Top