Torquay United Fans Forum

hector wrote: ↑05 Apr 2024, 14:33 Added to this is the insinuation from Osborne that she works as a volunteer; why would you work for free unless you agree with what those running the club say and do?

Maybe because you can have more positive influence by sitting inside the tent than outside?

Totally agree Brucie, I think part time will be incredibly difficult and it should be the absolute last option, but judging on everything in the public arena at the moment it seems to be the only option as there is no white knight out there prepared to inject the necessary cash to maintain a full-time club. The best hope would seem to be to ensure a takeover happens before administration, preserve national league south football on a part time basis and hope to find a white knight down the line. I don’t see any prospect for a full time club without that external support.

What surprises me though is why anyone is surprised at this situation - it was fairly obvious this would be the outcome of Osborne walking away.

It’s academic Dave - if neither of the bidders can prove they have the funds to financially support a business plan that allows for a full-time squad it cannot happen. They need the cash available and committed now and as seems apparent neither of the bidders have that additional £500k+ available. Neither the administrators overseeing the bidding process or the National League will accept bidders who don’t have a developed financing plan that ensures the club can remain solvent for at least 12 months ahead.

Mike Bateson existed in a different era when most of the Conference was part time and there wasn’t the professionalism that many of the smaller part time clubs have today. He still injected his own money, there was the prize money from being in the football league, transfer revenue as others have said as well as revenue from the odd cup run. Even then it was often hand to mouth with not a small amount of luck a long the way.

If there is no one waiting in the wings now who is prepared to dip into their own pocket to provide a minimum of £500k per year (and I’d expect it to be more) then there is zero choice in going part time - a clever accountant cannot magic cash from thin air. Any buyers will have to demonstrate they have a financial plan to keep the club solvent for the next year.

knightmaregull wrote: ↑29 Mar 2024, 22:06 It would, of course, not be ideal. However, as per my earlier post, we need to shift our mindsets and realise that even in the best case now, some significant sacrifices are going to be required, as a means to an ultimate end. We will have to take steps back to lay the foundations to step forward again.

If we manage to get the takeover completed then it will be a plan for 'success' over the next decade, not the next season and we all need to get comfortable with that and then enjoy the journey!

If that's a mix of full and part time then so be it. It would be a strategic stepping stone.

If you have full time players then you need also to pay for some kind of full time coaching staff, physio as well as paying for the training ground - and with only 6-10 players, training is hardly like to be productive. So which half respecting professional footballer is going to want to join that set up? You’d end up with a group of washed up has beend trying to eke out a last season or two on a full time salary. Just seems like throwing good money after bad.

culmstockgull wrote: ↑29 Mar 2024, 13:57 I apologise if my comments are deemed inacurate, the figures suggested by Nick are three years old based on company filings for 2022 so actually for the season 2021, so must be considered totally irrelevant today, as an aside, look at one recent statement, the TUST say that they deem the only way forward in the short term is part time football obviously based on three year old figures, unless the tust has access to current information that you havent shared, who exactly took this strategic decision for part time working and what alternatives were explored. and why were your views but not necessarily the views of the membership at large not shared before making this decision..

Culmstockgull, the latest figures are to June-22 so around 18 months out of date and what really do you think will have changed? Maintaining a full time squad in National League south is not going to substantially cheaper than in the National League and any savings will just offset reductions in revenues. Surely everyone knows that the club has survived via injections of around £1million per year for the last 5 years.

Given TUST know they don’t have access to £1million per year, what other alternative do you think they were supposed to explore?

Yeofan wrote: ↑22 Mar 2024, 11:45 So what ? As part time, surely the biggest (by a country mile) team in NLS can get themselves promoted. Then at NL level where full time is the the norm, go full time.

In a crappy location making it very difficult to attract enough good quality part-time players as their opportunities for their professional careers are limited.

We've just had full time NL level and it cost £1million a year of external funding to support that, so what is changing? The average annual deficit in the National League is around £700k, most teams are relying on external support to compete at that level and other clubs have the advantage of owning their own ground and the additional revenues that can bring.

Southampton Gull wrote: ↑13 Mar 2024, 21:52 Couldn't agree more and this is why i kept trying to divert the hatred for Gary Johnson onto Osborne and his motley crew of directors.

Some took it as blind support for the Manager when it was nothing of the sort. How anyone can sympathise with Osborne with his history I find bewildering.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you Dave. Regardless of Clarke Osborne’s motives, he provided additional cash than Torquay United itself generated, or can likely hope to generate in the near term, for the playing side. The playing budget was better off due to Clarke Osborne’s actions regardless of motive. Without those injections Torquay United would have much more likely have tumbled down the pyramid and probably into administration/insolvency some time ago. As it was there was promotion back to the National League and a whisker away from a return to the league -had the club returned to the league it is possible it could stand on its own two feet, given the additional money from the EFL.

I have sympathy for those who say maybe it would be better for this to happen pre-Osborne took over, but personally I wouldn’t have wanted to miss out on that epic season and play off final even if it ultimately wasn’t successful.

I’m not suggesting any gratitude, or sympathy for Osborne by the above - it was a business gamble that didn’t pay off. But I don’t see how that relates to onfield performance.

It’s not Clarke Osborne’s fault the club is now languishing in mid table (pre points deduction) in National League South - that is Gary Johnson’s fault, both for relegation last year and worse the performance this year when he was given a full time playing budget - sure I could accept being behind Yeovil and having a tough competition with top part time sides, but the reality is the season has been utter dross. Regardless of what you think about Clarke Osborne, I don’t possibly see how Gary Johnson can be absolved in any way whatsoever and the fact that club languishes in national league south makes it an even harder proposition to sell and it’s even more of a money pit.

Absolutely blame Clarke Osborne for not sacking Johnson in Jan-23, that I can fully get behind.

Gloomy Gull wrote: ↑13 Mar 2024, 18:06 I have tried to take a rational and dispassionate view of the circumstances and please be aware I am not an advocate for Osborne or his track record.

Osborne was "gifted" the club by the financial ineptitude of the previous directors who failed/did not have the requisite skills to keep the finances in sufficient shape resulting in a possible Administration being perilously close with no other viable option.

Osborne, absolutely rightly, was called out on his sporting club history by many of the posters on this and other sites and almost immediately his ownership was met, understandably correctly, with significant suspicion and was believed to be a path to problems. These views were made quite vociferously at times.

The underlying burning desire to see him relinquish his ownership has continued throughout his tenure.

Osborne was clear from the get go that he had no interest in football and his desire to do to TUFC what he had done to numerous other sporting clubs regarding the premises they operate from was evident at an early stage. i.e. take control of Plainmoor. He has attempted to bring that to a conclusion that met with his plans on a number of occasions and has been thwarted by the council (thankfully).

BUT despite all the vitriol sent his way over that last few years he was still prepared to "gamble" monies, which may or may not be recovered, on achieving that goal. The offshoot of that action was to sustain TUFC as an operating club during those years - remember the impending Administration at the start.

He has now taken the business decision to cut his losses and step away from a potentially (in his strategy) profitable venture and supporters who did not want him to be the owner anyway, and in recent months have made that view heard louder and louder. The subject of whether he is able to recover any of the loan monies is unclear at this stage, but if Administration is the outcome, it is highly unlikely any repayment of those loans will be made.

Whilst I am devastated that the club I have supported for 60 years is now in a perilous position because of Osborne's actions I do, as someone who has been in the business environment for 40 years, understand why he has chosen to leave.

Perhaps, if he had not been vilified so hard for so long, he may have been more inclined to try to find a buyer rather than walk away from somewhere it was very clear didn't want him. Now we are wringing our hands at the outcome of the "campaign" to oust Osborne. The old adage of "be careful what you wish for" springs to mind here.

Even now he is being pilloried for doing exactly what has been called for by many for the last 5 years! I do not recall Thea receiving such responses when she too decided that she had put enough of her money into the club and walked away - and she loved the club - leaving us back at my opening point, impending Administration.

I do have faith that something recoverable will rise like a phoenix from the ashes and hope to God that the next incumbent to take on the club has only good intentions and believe that we, the supporters, should be focusing on a future rather than continuing to moan about what has happened.

Yes completely agree with this, I think this is 100% spot on. Osborne will lose a substantial amount of money here, money that has kept the club at a much higher level of resources than was likely under any other alternative and it was a penalty shoot out away from returning league status, which could have made viability without external support look different. Osborne can be blamed for he club languishing mid table in National League south only so far as he didn't sack Gary Johnson 15 months ago - it isn't for lack of resources.

A lot of people here seem to think there is some clever tax wheeze that will save him - there isn't. He might get some tax relief from writing off the loan, but it will be max 20% of the total amount written off.

No issue that people don't have any sympathy/gratitude for Osborne, he took a gamble that didn't pay off. However now whinging he is walking away and that leaves the club facing administration is hypocritical. There is no need for him to stave off administration by throwing money good money after bad, in what was purely a business transaction.

TommyGunn wrote: ↑13 Mar 2024, 17:05 This also results in the Club being placed under a Player Embargo.

What a nasty final act from CO

https://www.devonlive.com/sport/sport-o ... er-9160211

So you want him out, but you want him to keep putting more of his money in that he will lose while he tries to find a buyer?

TommyGunn wrote: ↑13 Mar 2024, 16:29 I'd like to know why the owner put us in this position? Did he not understand the rules?

Surely this makes the club less attractive to new owners?

Why did he not try to sell the club first before having this intention to appoint administartors???

Torquay United have been deducted ten points from the 2023/24 National League South table after the club submitted its intention to appoint administrators.

https://www.thenationalleague.org.uk/na ... ited-80868

As soon as he starts a sale process where he will write off all debts the club owes him, he isn't going to put in more money just to have it written off. As soon he informs the directors he won't put in more money which the club is reliant on for its survival then they have no choice but to take this step otherwise they risk personal liability.

WestLondonYellow wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 09:13 From Pasoti.

"All I am saying is that the accounting convention stated in successive yearly accounts do not appear to have been applied. There may be a reason for it but it all seems as you say 'fishy'.

Argyle's plant and machinery value in their 2023 accounts, by comparison, was shown as £221,865 as opposed to TUFC's £2,731,691. I think that says it all. TUFC's value of plant and machinery in their accounts is more than ten times Argyle's - really!"

Tangible assets were around £2.6million when Osborne took over the club and at June 2022 were £2.3million

Depreciation is around £60-70k per year and there are a few small additions a long the way. Nothing really strange in that.

I wouldn’t look at comparisons with Argyle - they own the ground so classifications will be different. For example I believe floodlights are probably classified by Argyle as part of the overall Freehold and building value but for United are probably property plant and equipment. However all this predates Osborne.

Taelee73 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2024, 13:02
All money owed to Osbourne has been repaid, doesn't mean all money owed has been. If it's loans taken out on TUFC's behalf by him are not in his name, then the 5 million is still owed.

The club owes around £5million to Osborne in unsecured loans - according to the post from Dave, Osborne has agreed to write these off. Other than that the club has debts to banks of around £600k at June-22 and £400k to other creditors.

SuperNickyWroe wrote: ↑29 Jan 2024, 14:27 If he did that, he wouldn't get anywhere near his money back....
And he won't want to lose any money at all.

At some point he’ll stop throwing good money after bad. I’d be curious as to the attendances needed to break even if the club was run on a part-time basis.

Cheddargull wrote: ↑27 Jan 2024, 15:00 Kevin Foster, the local MP, says he talked to the council leadership. All the council did was give the club a polite hearing and reiterated that Plainmoor is NOT for sale, they also queried how the club intended to finance any development.
In other words nothing is going to happen so stop worrying.

If nothing is happening then Osborne will certainly stop putting additional funds in the club and no doubt seek to recover funds which will almost certainly result in liquidation. That is certainly something to worry about.

Torquay United Fans Forum

Search found 529 matches

Potential Buyers

Potential Buyers

Potential Buyers

Potential Buyers

Potential Buyers

Potential Buyers

Potential Buyers

Points deduction

Points deduction

Points deduction

Points deduction

Osborne gone!

Where's the money going?

Clark Osborne/Jim Parker Interview

Clark Osborne/Jim Parker Interview

Search found 529 matches

Login • Register