5%

[Awayday]

http://www.torquayunited.com/page/News/ ... 90,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am all up for making sure the clubs are financial sound and are only spending money based on their gate incomes. However reducing League 2 by 5% is that not making the gap bigger between the likes of Torquay (with fairly small gate receipts) and Exter / Plymouth / Bristol R &C / Yoevil who get bigger gates?

In July we have the builders in (slightly different to having the decorators in) and with a team slowly deminishing us to a relagation team the club have got some tricky decisions to make.

They will either need to increase the ticket price, increase the attendance records or decrease the wages. I know they are currently working on the later, but can they realistically keep the gate prices the same when the attendances drop as we plummit lower down the table?

Maybe there was a bigger incentive to win that final game now rather than worrying about the cost of away games and losing players.

[andygull]

I think wages will decrease eventually anyway because if we struggle this year, attendances will drop a little and ticket prices may go up the season after next so the latter will happen and also the former. This scenario would hope to see Torquay on a more sound financial footing but there is no way i am going to keep paying for increases in ticket prices, in a recession for league 2 football. And i am sure many other fans will say the same. I love the club and i love going to football but with travel etc etc i just cannot afford to keep going to Plainmoor should ticket prices keep rising. The club always moan about getting more fans through the turnstiles but they offer no incentives whatsoever. Not even attend 10 games get a game free, or things like this. We are technically customers of Torquay United and we should be treated as such not treated like shit on a regualr basis ( like the bizarre lack of info coming from the club about the new manger appointment).

[basil75]

I agree with the purpose of financial fair play, but the way it is applied is lazy, useless and benefits bigger clubs.

Plymouth, Southend and Stockport will be able to spend far more than many other clubs in this division with these rules, despite being in severe financial difficulties - just because they have a higher turnover. High turnover does not mean they have more to spend - clubs may have to pay high levels of interest, rent on the stadium they don't own etc etc.

Ideally, all clubs would get a financial rating and the rules would be attached to that rating. For example an A rated club can do what they like, B rated 70% of turnover, C rated 60%, D rated 50% or something along those lines. For instance, a club on the brink such as Plymouth would get an E (40%), Southend - not in admin, but have struggled in and out of it and have the HMRC continuously on their backs - D, Crawley, have financial problems in the recent past but wealthy due to a financial windfall that may not be sustainable - B.

A historically well run, financially sound club should be able to choose how to spend the money they have.

[andygull]

Agree with Basil. The bigger clubs in the league who are struggling financially like Plymouth and Bradford would still be able to pay more wages and attract better players than clubs like ourselves. In principle the idea is good but in practice it won't work.