TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

What's with the negative vibes,TUFC isn't dead, it won't die, wish these numptys would p*ss off elsewhere.TUFC 4LIFE!!

desperado wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 20:12 As Bobby T said we could without the negativity of WBW and Torquay United ! Inappropriate user name !
If an extra 2000 turned up for the remaining home games plus ghost tickets etc that would make a difference.

Don't bother with those two...
Think they know things, but obviously don't....

wbw wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 14:43 Apologies for "going quiet" lol...other jobs to do. Also apologies for calling the poster clueless, that was wrong.
Including NI, pension costs and other expenses, the monthly salaries cost is in excess of £100k. The club has been losing over £20k a week for years, that's nearly £85k a month.
The immediate issue is not the debts, whom ever they are owed to, but cash flow. Players contracts will include an agreement that, if not paid with 14 days, they are entitled to a free transfer and can move immediately. Since none of them are worth anything, the free transfer is irrelevant, but they can leave.
That would be a bonus to any Administrator appointed as the only funds he will have are those left in the club when appointed and any generated afterwards. I would suggest that this will be insufficient to continue.

You, again, are incorrect.

Any player is able to terminate his contract with the club due to the material breach committed by the club in not paying him.
It is generally accepted that players give 14 days to resolve the issue, before leaving.

wbw wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 21:26 Any player is able to terminate his contract with the club due to the material breach committed by the club in not paying him.
It is generally accepted that players give 14 days to resolve the issue, before leaving.

OK, so the question is, have they breached within the 14 days....???

Woefully overspending is not a problem as long as someone foots the bill. Stoke do it, as do Man City, Chelsea and many others.
Unfortunately so did Darlington, Bury, Chester, Maidstone and Aldershot amongst others. Then the funds stopped.
Just for the record, I'm not particularly a fan of Osbourne, but simply making the point that you need to have a plan B, before rejecting plan A

wbw wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 21:46 Woefully overspending is not a problem as long as someone foots the bill. Stoke do it, as do Man City, Chelsea and many others.
Unfortunately so did Darlington, Bury, Chester, Maidstone and Aldershot amongst others. Then the funds stopped.
Just for the record, I'm not particularly a fan of Osbourne, but simply making the point that you need to have a plan B, before rejecting plan A

The only reason we need a Plan B is because Osborne gambled and didn't get what he wanted.
And you haven't answered my 14 day query......

wbw wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 21:46 Woefully overspending is not a problem as long as someone foots the bill. Stoke do it, as do Man City, Chelsea and many others.
Unfortunately so did Darlington, Bury, Chester, Maidstone and Aldershot amongst others. Then the funds stopped.
Just for the record, I'm not particularly a fan of Osbourne, but simply making the point that you need to have a plan B, before rejecting plan A

Plan B is already in discussions with Osborne to buy the club. Of course you know that......

Southampton Gull wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 22:02 Plan B is already in discussions with Osborne to buy the club. Of course you know that......

All is good then, no problem.

SuperNickyWroe wrote: 25 Feb 2024, 21:56 The only reason we need a Plan B is because Osborne gambled and didn't get what he wanted.
And you haven't answered my 14 day query......

Not sure whether you deliberately miss the point or are just being plain awkward. It's easy to say "again, incorrect", without offering an alternative.

IF the material breach, ie. non payment of salaries, is committed, players are free to leave. It is normal not to do so for 14 days, but that assumes the Administrator wants to keep them and is trying to find a way around the obstacle. In the event that a club is in the absolute mire with no cash to run the club, it suits them to run the 14 day clock down.

All of the above is in the event of an Administrator being appointed.

Lastly, FL rules may still apply, in that players can only play for a maximum of 2 clubs in any one season. Not sure whether this still applies in Administration.

Southampton Gull wrote: 23 Feb 2024, 20:03 Edwards and Hayman were there today. If they dare to show their ugly mugs tomorrow I hope they get what they deserve. The sooner they slink off the better. Hayman has a lot to answer for and in time I will make sure everything comes out so people can clearly see the type of person she really is.

Think it’s time to start letting the info you have come out because they are still there and no one is clear on where the money raised is going. On the Pasoti forum advice is, do not trust a word that comes out of the official site. And they’ve been through it.

WestLondonYellow wrote: 26 Feb 2024, 19:39 Think it’s time to start letting the info you have come out because they are still there and no one is clear on where the money raised is going. On the Pasoti forum advice is, do not trust a word that comes out of the official site. And they’ve been through it.

The safe bet is the TUST fund. Their constitution safeguards this. Weymouth’s owners clearly understand and appreciate this. The other club fund is reliant on Osborne and Edwards’ interpretation of the term ‘essential operating costs’ until or unless an administrator is appointed or they have both f***ed off.

We will all have our own interpretation of what ‘essential operating costs’ means or is limited to, but our interpretation is not as important as that of Osborne and Edwards regarding the fund if we are not in administration or owned by someone other than Osborne.

Does the club foot the bill for the under 18s and Ladies football?

Another issue is the bowling club/facility based under the pop side stand. A friend of mine who uses this says that the monies they pay go to Clarke Osborne - is this part of the equation?

I don't think they foot the bill for the u18's. I'm sure that parents make a monthly payment.
Regarding the ladies - I always thought they are a desperate concern and are funded separately, maybe wrong though?