Torquay United Fans Forum

I'll take your word for that Forever, as it's not a TV programme I watch. But my understanding is that the purpose of it is to make the most successful commercial decisions ? Working out ways to maximise income etc ?

I'm 100 % certain that Forest Green realise that discontinuing sales of meat pies will lead to a loss of income. No way is it a decision based on commercial considerations. As I said in my post on this thread back on 2nd November:

I doubt anyone would question the dubious economic sense of only offering vegan food to spectators

So I think you, me, Gullscorer, Forest Green, and everyone else can easily agree on that obvious point.

Gullscorer has a devastating 'moral' argument to explain to us soon, which by definition shouldn't include 'you'll make more cash by selling meat pies' so we'll wait to be enlightened.

Feeling guilty at having distracted Gullscorer from his main campaigns by distracting him into engaging with a good natured knock about concerning the provision of meat pies, I will publicise this article that appears today:

The brutal truth is that the intellectual arguments for feminism have been extremely weak for a generation, but politically the movement remains in an unassailable position.

All that means is that to the kind of ambitious, careerist politician who forms the political class, taking on feminism is tantamount to a death wish: can you name a single front-rank politician who has done so in your lifetime?

Given that men seem to becoming steadily less important to the economy and alienated indigenous men are currently easily replaced by migrant labour from abroad, that moment of epiphany seems likely to be a long way off. For men, it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/andr ... them-back/

I'd just like to say that I agree with every word of the post that Gullscorer made today......on the Swindon Town Forum regarding Martin Ling.
It's also good to know that he's bouncing back after a couple of days illness, and we all know that a lot can change in a few days.

I'm sure it was only a couple of days ago that I was reading about a football club owner who thought it was so morally wrong that animals should be killed so that their meat could be put into pies, that he made the decision that his Football Club would no longer help fund this slaughter.

But Gullscorer jumped onto his soapbox with a 'Sod your morals mate, you need whacking over the head with the Human Rights Act to get those meat pies back on sale. Morals bad, legislation good. The chance to eat meet pies is more advantageous that allowing you to act in accordance with your morals', message.

Now compare and contrast:

'Moral principles are not to be traded in return for some other particular advantage'

Yep, that's right...Gullscorer is now arguing for the exact opposite of what he was advocating just a day or two ago. Aha, the slipperiness of a Politician you're thinking, and when I read that the FGR fans used 'hard earned money' to pay for their entry to the match, I too became convinced GS is a Master of Spin, who realises the substance of his argument is pretty thin. The facts are than Gullscorer hasn't the faintest clue whether fans used cash they won on a scratch card, or whether supporters have a cosy public sector job where the concept of hard work is completely alien to them. If GS wanted to be more certain when wishing to apply the 'hard working' tag, then the owner of Forest Green, who left school at 15 with no qualifications and started work as a mechanic... now he has had to work exceptionally hard to build up successful businesses and to work equally hard at making Forest Green a success.

I initially took issue with Gullscorer's desire to hit Forest Green with legislation in order to make them change their catering ways. Then GS tells us that 'Law' is off the menu for debate...then it sneaks back in again today as we learn that the FGR chairman is taking advantage of his 'legal rights'.

And just when you think Gullscorer must be running out of straws to grasp, he's now made a grab for 'morality'. You can imagine the queue at Plainmoor when the 'No more meat pies' announcement is made, expressions of disappointment, complaints of hunger, regret at lack of choice....and there at the back is GS screaming that his morals are outraged !!! WTF ? No meat pies is actually an old fashioned morality tale, well who'd have thunk it

As GS knows, my objection was to him advocating Big Government be brought in to bring it's fist down on the 'veggie food only' idea at Forest Green. What GS additionally wished to spout about morality was of little or no interest to me. However, based on his post above, I reckon he's on dodgy ground with his 'moral' argument as well. But I won't address that at the moment as by tomorrow it could well be a case of 'No, no, this was never anything to do with morality', plus in fairness to GS he's explained that finishing off a bottle of port wine is responsible for his muddled thinking, and clearly the effects haven't worn off yet

Superb news, and I wish him and Swindon every success. Hopefully our club shop will shortly be stocking Torquay United/Swindon Town half and half scarves.

Mornin' Gullscorer


Gullscorer

1. I had absolutely no desire to use the law to force anyone to comply with my wishes. My suggestion was to sue him for recompense for breaching our human rights. .

You can't dream up a fantasyland where you can ignore the consequences of your heavy handed Government enforcement and only believe that the bits you like would exist. So you get awarded some cash to spend on a holiday or to donate to the Mens Liberation Movement (i.e recompensed for having your human rights breached). But that isn't all that happens, you've conveniently forgotten the bit where the law is forcing the other person to comply with your wishes.

"So that's your fine for your first offence under the non provision of meat pies under the Human Rights act Mr.FGR Owner. Comply, or next time the fine will be doubled. There is no shortage of Lefties out there demanding you get hauled before this court time and time again, until we see those meat pies on sale"

Similarly if I get fined for speeding I don't give a fig if the fine goes towards filling in pot holes on the A30, compensating Mrs.Jones and her dog for scaring them when I drove past as 80mph, or goes into the Chief Constable's back pocket. My concern is the money taken off me aimed at compelling me to conform in future, and the knowledge that if I don't conform they'll eventually increase my punishment and lock me up.

Forget your idealist desires and think about the reality and consequences that your dictatorial wishes would bring about.


Gullscorer

2. I absolutely stand by what I have regarded from the outset as the real issues here, as I have already explained. If you don't have what it takes to understand what I'm saying, then yes, it will be impossible to argue with you..

My understanding of what you're saying is that even though it's a multi faceted situation with all sorts of intended and unintended consequences attached to overruling Forest Green's right to provide or not provide what they choose to put on sale, it has to be you and only you who chooses which narrow issues can be mentioned, and you can demand they be dropped from discussion if they no longer suit. e.g You start off by bringing in the Law, then you decree that the Law is no longer to be discussed. Well on a Forum it doesn't work like that.

Gullscorer

The FGR chairman should remember that his first duty is to the club, and not to his extreme minority ideological Vegan beliefs which are shared by just 0.25% of the population

Why must he remember this ??? Why can't he have his own opinion ? Rather than be told by you what is most important. Why can't your opinion be just that - 'an opinion' - that happens to be different than his ? If, for him, doing his bit to convert more people to a vegan diet, and he thinks it'll improve the health of mankind, then let him see that as a more important priority that a club for kicking a ball around once a week. If he see's owning the Football club as the best way to get his message out re sustainable energy or vegan food to the people of Gloucestershire, and that is a more important issue to him that football, so what...why do there have to be Little Hitler's dictating what his first duty is ? Let the man decide for himself....he owns the club not you !

Gullscorer

this is not a question of law (what he did was perfectly legal, and at no time have I advocated changing the law here)

I doubt anyone would question the dubious economic sense of only offering vegan food to spectators, but yes, it was your very desire to use the law to force the Forest Green Owner to comply with your wishes that I'm taking issue with:

Gullscorer

If I were a FGR supporter I'd organise a rebellion, complain to the league and the FA, sue him for breach of our human rights

After kicking off your initial argument by attempting to bring human rights legislation in on your side, to now come out with 'this is not a question of law' is truly remarkable. If your position is going to flip around that quickly then yes, it will be impossible to argue with you

forevertufc

the owner in my view has no right to deny a fan milk in his drink or a meat pie if that's want he/she wants.

And if the owner was Muslim, no doubt he'd have no right to deny a fan a pork pie if that's what he/she wants ?. When will busy bodies stop trying to poke their noses in and dictating to others how they should run there business ?

If Forest Green only want to sell Deep fried Mars bars and nothing else, or don't want to sell food & drink to spectators at all, then that should be their choice. When I go into my town's one fish and chip shop they offer me a choice of fish & chips, just fish or just chips. I don't want a human right that forces them to have pizza available.

Gullscorer resembles a militant feminist demanding the heavy hand of the law be brought in to force someone to act against their will. All power to the Forest Green owner....not that I'd buy any of his vegan food or assorted lettuce leaves :~D

I've a feeling that johnsonfairlight69 is referring to the crossbar, rather than to a bar where beer is served

tomogull

In spite of last night's lowly gate of 1200, I think I am right in saying that the average gate for the season is still over 1800

There are some out there who believe that what you're saying isn't right

Here is a different calculation posted on another site: 'Tonight's attendance of 1210 takes the season average to 1765, and below the break-even figure of 1800'.

Hurst
Butler
Heslop
Briscoe
MacDonald

SenorDingDong

Hargreaves was getting paid still because he rejected a pay cut but wouldn't resign for the good of the club

I think it's stretching things a bit to say that Hargreaves rejected a pay cut. If we remember how Dave Thomas described the situation (18th June):

'They were asked to take significant pay cuts, even United admit that. Chris Hargreaves was prepared to consider a pay cut. He's done it before a couple of times to my certain knowledge. Before the discussions could get much further it quickly became apparent the new consortium were probably thinking of going in a new direction anyway, and all three of them have now been placed on gardening leave, which in United's perilous financial situation that is quite a significant move in itself, because you've now got three men who will have to be paid'

hector

In the link below, it suggests that Bill Phillips has requested the money to be lodged by June 4th

Isn't it far more likely that the Edwards consortium requested that they be given until June 4th to come up with the money ?
I can't see why Bill Phillips would choose to wait until 2 days before the Conference AGM allowing him only 48 hours to try to negotiate with other bidders.

If the Edwards Consortium could get the money in the relevant account tomorrow, or far sooner than 4th June, then I can't see Bill Phillips saying 'No rush lads, you hang onto it a bit longer, as the most I'd need would be 2 days to sort everything before the Conference AGM'.

What is important, is that if the Edwards bid is successful, the fans get told whether the other bid really was from McCrory or not. Otherwise I can see the excuse of ' the only alternative was Jed McCrory' being trotted out regularly in future to stifle criticism of unpopular decisions.

Kit-robin

I, personally, would view with a furrowed brow anyone who donates a reasonable sum of money to the current board in this transitional period. How you can trust them to use it, after it is now obvious we have been managed off the field in the most amateur of ways, is beyond me. You are just paying to prop up a failing regime for a few more weeks before it makes way for someone else.

Far more useful, in my opinion, to stand with one of the interested parties to speed the pace of change that is so severely needed, or to place it into the Forever Yellow fund to allow TUST to play a bigger part in takeover talks.

Perhaps a short term cash injection will see us going into the Conference AGM on June 2nd showing a record of being able to pay all our bills on time ? If we can get over that hurdle relatively unscathed it'll be one less thing to worry about.

I understand the reluctance many might feel about giving cash to the current board, but just how certain can we be that TUST would sweep away the old regime even if they were in a position to do so ? I've no idea how pally the TUST top brass are with the current directors, but given the match day programme coverage, and recently allowing TUST activists to recruit inside the ground, and remembering that one or two of those still at the top table could also be card carrying TUST members, I'm not totally assured that TUST would purge Plainmoor of the 'failing regime' quite as thoroughly as some would like to see.

Then there might be the input of the Breed Consortium to consider. Would they be gunning for the Manager rather than any old directors who wanted to stay on ?

The speculation should end soon as details of the bright new dawn can't be far away.....and we save a quid a match as well . COYY

Orange Gull

I don't believe for a second that if he really wanted to leave then the party executive would have forced him to remain.

I'm sure Orange Gull is quite right on this, and equally, as the elected Party Leader, the Executive would have had a hard job dislodging him against his will had they wanted to, given his overwhelming popularity among ordinary Party members.

When Farage stated that he intended resigning from the Leadership if he failed to gain the Thanet seat, I think UKIP were genuinely believing that they could get, seven, eight, maybe even a dozen MP's at this Election. If Farage was not to be one of them, then to remain as Party leader would have given UKIP an odd situation. Just imagine if Vince Cable had been Liberal Party leader rather than Clegg. Would it not have been right for him, having failed in his bid to get elected, to resign the leadership so that the Party could then select someone as Party leader who couple lead their group of 8 or 9 Liberal MP's in Parliament ?

With one solitary MP, the practical point behind Farage's resignation never materialised. Carswell has got the UKIP Westminster office to himself. UKIP remain a well supported political force, but one that is almost totally devoid of representation in Parliament.

Farage has done as he said he would, and tendered his letter of resignation. As he's the most able and effective communicator they have, and far and away their major asset, I can understand the reluctance of UKIP members and voters to see him go. Also unlike the situation with Red Ed where they're queuing up to jump into his shoes, I don't think anyone was coming forward within UKIP to suggest they could do a better job than Farage.

Meanwhile, all the Romanians, boat people, and asylum seekers, who'll be flooding in over the next 5 years should all be sent directly to Thanet South and kept there, in order to punish the electorate of that area for not electing Nige

Downes
Young
Bowman
Ajala
Ives