Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 12:08:56 GMT
rjdgull
It's an argument that may play well with TUST members who are aware it's absolutely imperative to keep the club at Plainmoor, with the Council as landlords, if the dream of TUST control of the club is ever to be realised. But I don't think it will stack up as being realistic in the eyes of the local community, public, or wider fan base.
The club is owned by one single individual. If the club folded and the Council then allowed TUST and their Red Star Gulls to rise debt free like a phoenix from the flames and stage their games at Plainmoor, would Osborne take on and defeat the Council ? Not only is he constrained by the watertight clauses he's signed up to in the 'Masters Agreement' (as myself and Rob have discussed on many occasions) but do the local authority not have competent lawyers at least able to draw up belt and braces further stipulations ? Then already massed against Osborne, we've got Riviera Macron the local MP, already on the verge of jumping up and down in parliament over the relatively trivial issue of not being able to decide on a mutually convenient time for a chat with CO. Then add in the might of the BBC who appear to be doing TUST's bidding also.
The notion that even a single Councillor would oppose spending money on some legal fees to retain the ground for the Town's historic football club would cause an absolute outrage, particularly if it was recalled the huge sums they've wasted spent on daft projects and ridiculous causes over the years. Not only electoral suicide but, recalling that certain Militants on another Forum were already discussing the practicality of staking out Geoff Harrop's home address for further action, then any Councillor not showing the necessary whole-hearted support for Plainmoor in those circumstances, would surely be guaranteeing their private life was going to be adversely affected by very angry Militants indeed.
You'd think that Osborne was George Soros, currently single-handedly attempting to finance the overthrow of Brexit. Whereas in reality the Council hold, if not all the cards, then at least all the important ones. Nothing can go ahead if not on their say so, and on the terms they insist on. Osborne has nothing other than a severely loss making non league football club on his hands that bumps along near the bottom of it's division year after year.
The Council will have to either actually cooperate in trying to create something better, more successful and more sustainable. Or indicate that the club's future direction of travel will more likely be a few divisions lower still, as we get increasingly outdated, outspent and irrelevant in the football world, and even the sight of the red flag flying over Plainmoor will be a poor consolation compared to the bright future that was rejected.
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,232 
|
Post by rjdgull on Feb 12, 2018 12:50:12 GMT
Well, if nothing else then reference to the “Masters agreement “made me smile at your post. It is a pity that with your anyone but TUST stance and my anti CO stance that middle ground between us cannot be found!
Just for the record, I do not have any issue with moving away from Plainmoor but it must be to the advantage of the club and due to CO’s past business decisions and record I do not have any confidence this will be achieved and as a fan it is not something I can support.
|
|
simonb
TFF member
Posts: 1,206
|
Post by simonb on Feb 12, 2018 13:20:08 GMT
CO has nothing to offer full stop!
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,232
|
Post by rjdgull on Feb 12, 2018 15:40:16 GMT
I think it is very difficult to enforce if the freehold was sold first. CO has a history of encountering unforeseen “problems “ along the way, he talks the talk but does not walk the walk! Would a cash strapped local authority go through an expensive court case if it wasn’t then built? Particularly if a groundless TUFC then folded in the interim.... Of course it would be difficult to enforce, if the freehold was sold before any stadium was built, but that's not what I said. Fair enough, I thought your point was about getting the funding to get the construction started. If a new multi use stadium was built then a surrender of the lease for an agreed lump sum from the council could be a way forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 16:45:12 GMT
rjdgull  Casting our minds back to the warm words issued, and public pronouncements made when the deal had been done, and it could be announced that Uncle Clarke, in addition to having provided the funds to help us finance squad strengthening to enable the first 'Great Escape' but was now additionally going to save us from Administration, as well as stick around to mastermind our transformation into a sustainable football club, back on the right road to success, helped in the greater part by the additional income generated by the facilities and possibilities that a new modern stadium would give us, it was surely the revelation of the existence of the 'Masters Agreement' that brought a smile of contented reassurance to most faces at the time. Peter Masters shrewdly recognised that although the majority of Gulls fans would naturally be celebrating this good news, there would be a hardcore who would resist. Some would declare a 'lack of confidence in Clarke Osborne' as cause to oppose a move to the Osborne Arena. And that's why it was important to insure there'd be no need to rely on anything as flimsy as 'confidence' while safe in the knowledge we're backed by the cast iron 'Masters Agreement'. It stood out as the overwhelmingly important fact to emerge from those media interviews and soundbites by the various parties once the change of ownership had been completed. However, by all means let the Council examine the Masters Agreement with a fine tooth comb, and if they find the slightest chink of light for possible exploitation, our the smallest clause that the think isn't totally water tight, or allows wriggle room, then let them impose whatever additional reasonable safeguards they want. If the guarantee that we can always move back and continue at Plainmoor at any time until we've moved lock stock and barrel and commenced playing competitive matches at the Osborne Arena isn't as clear and binding as necessary in it's present form, then let the Council, Riviera Macron, and even the Trust, provide their own form of wording as well, if it'll speed things along. And if that is still unacceptable then at least it would be out in the open and prove the point that TUST's motivation is to keep us at Plainmoor at all costs in order to further their ambition of gaining control of the club. |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Feb 12, 2018 16:55:48 GMT
I think it is very difficult to enforce if the freehold was sold first. CO has a history of encountering unforeseen “problems “ along the way, he talks the talk but does not walk the walk! Would a cash strapped local authority go through an expensive court case if it wasn’t then built? Particularly if a groundless TUFC then folded in the interim.... Of course it would be difficult to enforce, if the freehold was sold before any stadium was built, but that's not what I said. Bypassing AJ’s comedic offerings on this serious matter briefly, the issue might be that other or enabling development is negotiated as required to fund the project and, by your analogy Flo, give the funders their return. You should be aware of examples of grand plans and statements of ‘in the new stadium by x date’ made by Osborne where the freehold was not also sought to fully understand the history of non-construction and demolition that others have referred to, Flo. The funding and process is often far from as black and white as you portray. If only it were that simple. And that’s before we even mention whether company A or B entered the agreement and no longer is in business at date C in your hypothetical. To date, nobody has been able to pinpoint one new stadium built from scratch despite many announcements at many locations, spanning a ‘stadium’ career traced back by haldonrambler to four decades ago. That is the elephant in the room. They can pinpoint other development, land sales, multiple plan submissions, groundshare proposals that don’t happpen, interested parties reportedly not being able to contact Osborne or one of the companies he’s associated with after nothing has seemingly happened etc etc. You name it. But agreement that ‘freehold X transfers when Y is complete’ does not begin to even scratch the surface of analysis of either funding or ‘outcome’ in the long list of examples outlined. And when it comes to ‘outcome’ in those examples, you and others are already aware of the salient issue of no new stadium built, Flo. The odd stand here. The current offering of pre-fabs on the same site at Swindon. But not a new stadium built from scratch elsewhere as Jim Parker thinks could happen at Quinta. Not once has that happened as far as anyone posting on any of the TUFC forums appears able to deduce. Yet there have been many media announcements by Osborne in many locations covering a long period of time that led others reading to believe a new stadium might only be a matter of months or a couple of years tops away, for it to not transpire. The elephant in the room. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 18:29:39 GMT
Rob
Perhaps rather than the usual collection of vagaries, hints, and insinuations, Rob could tell us some straightforward facts enabling us to gain some context. How many stadiums has Osborne actually been granted permission to go ahead and construct from scratch ? If we know whether it's 1 or 100 then we can start to judge whether an elephant exists, and what proportion of the room it's filling. Also could Rob give us a straightforward opinion on what percentage of blame he concludes should be laid at Osborne or his company's door for the groundshare proposals not reaching fruition ?
In addition, does he agree that given the nature of the specific problem that interested parties were seeking information about, that neither Osborne or his companies would have been the obvious or most relevant people to contact at the time ? However, over how long a period were these Companies uncontactable ? Were they all uncontactable by both phone and email.....and what evidence is there for us to be certain this wasn't simply a case of one junior local reporter mis-dialling after a boozy lunch, and therefore not getting a quote in time for his print deadline ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 21:47:13 GMT
Thanks for your reply Rob. Firstly my apologies, as the moment I read 'groundshare' I immediately assumed it related to the proposed shared stadium for Bristol City and Bristol Rovers. I didn't give speedway a thought, and am not sure what term might have got me thinking outside of my automatic football box; 'circuitshare' perhaps ? But thanks for the various replies and I'll see how well I get on matching them up with the questions asked  . |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Feb 12, 2018 22:08:56 GMT
The groundshare one is fairly straightforward, AJ. GI/Osborne suggested it, Stadia UK/Osborne demolished the proposed venue for that based in another town further east down the M4 and GI/Stadia UK/Osborne haven’t delivered on stadia in either town over a decade on. I thought most knew that.
I’ll happily add some detail that AJ has already read elsewhere, which others can weigh up and decide upon. Haldonrambler has gone to great detail in his research and it is deserving of a wider readership. Maybe AJ would like to share it on here?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but if you are seeking out a slant that Osborne knows from the outset that his plans won’t pass, AJ, I have no interest in obliging you. As I mentioned on the other site, that is straying almost into talk of fraud where there has been gain. Why would myself or the local media look to go there after reading haldonrambler’s research? Now whether the BBC reporter sees it differently, I couldn’t say. Perhaps I might know if I had ever been to one of those imaginary ‘BBC communist sympathising Conservative MP and trust member gatherings’ your less serious parody warns us of.
Osborne always appears very convinced and committed when announcing new stadium projects that he is confident he can deliver. Unfortunately it hasn’t resulted in the delivery of that grand project, namely the brand new stadium located elsewhere to replace the existing one. Ever. As far as you or I know, at least. If the HE or Osborne himself want to tell you or I otherwise to fill a knowledge gap, that is their prerogative.
I know you were rather slapped down elsewhere when suggesting Osborne has been unfortunate with local councils when it comes to new stadia delivery. The many new stadia seen in other towns for football being cited. Not to mention new speedway tracks that have been built. Hence your retreat to here. Which is fine. My aim for now is merely to point out that elephant in the room of zero replacement new site new stadia, despite much talk from Osborne regarding that very same thing.
I’m sure we are all encouraged that even you now appear to acknowledge that elephant in the room with your current request that I explore town hall documents and media dating back decades in Oxford, Swindon, Reading, Bristol, South Gloucestershire et al. Good for you. Perhaps we’ll get a bit less of that comic parody as a result? No joking around about some mythical watertight ‘Masters Clause’ in your last post. It’s a start.
And my apologies. Osborne’s ‘stadium’ career was illustrated by haldonrambler as spanning 5 decades and not the 4 that I had previously posted.
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Feb 12, 2018 23:28:19 GMT
Thanks for your reply Rob. Firstly my apologies, as the moment I read 'groundshare' I immediately assumed it related to the proposed shared stadium for Bristol City and Bristol Rovers. I didn't give speedway a thought, and am not sure what term might have got me thinking outside of my automatic football box; 'circuitshare' perhaps ? No problem. Despite our owner having spoken since late 2013 of completing by now the build of three separate replacement stadia in that sport, I understand where you’re coming from.....I feel reasonably sure that if any had been built we would have been on the same page.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 23:53:23 GMT
Admin we need the posts put back in the correct order please. The current rearranged tabulation gives a completely misleading impression.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,913
|
Post by Jon on Feb 17, 2018 0:24:30 GMT
I see AJ has switched tack in his staunch defence of Clarke Osborne.
He was steadfastly rebutting the idea that Clarke failed to deliver on building promises by dismissing it as "fake news" and pretending it never happened.
He now seems to recognise that it is in fact true that Clarke has indeed failed to deliver the stadia he has promised.
So we have a couple of new defences.
Clarke is not building new speedway and greyhound stadia, but not many people are. Why are we not moaning about everybody else not building speedway and greyhound stadia rather than picking on poor old Clarke?
Then there is the "not my fault gov" defence. Clarke has failed to deliver on his promises but it is never his fault. He is the innocent victim. It is the fault of local councils, NIMBYs, communist agitators or Dennis Compton.
How convinced are we by AJ's revised plea?
Firstly, I don't really care how many speedway and greyhound stadia get built. The key point is that Clarke has consistently failed to deliver on HIS promises to build them. That is the historical context against which we must set any current or future promises.
Secondly, if TUFC ends up homeless I don't care whose fault it is. I would much rather avoid it happening than hold a post-mortem as to whose fault it was.
It is because of Clarke's track record that we have to be vigilant and ensure that he does not get his hands on Plainmoor's freehold before he hands over our wonderful new stadium to us.
Will he do that? Of course not. It is indeed all about funding the stadium.
Let's go with the Willows / Quinta / Plainmoor swap discussed on here three years ago and finally cottoned on to by Jim Parker a week or two ago.
To raise the money to build the Willows Arena, Clarke will insist he has to build his "enabling development" at Quinta first. Before he can do this, he will have to hand over Plainmoor to Westlands.
That will leave TUFC homeless but don't worry - it will only be for a one season groundshare. Then the "unexpected problems" crop up. Unexpected problems that we all fully expect.
Alpine Joe does a great job of ridiculing the naivety of some people, but he does it in such an over-the-top way that you don't think anyone in the real world really thinks that way.
Then you read Jim Parker and you think - Shit, there really are people that daft.
Let's have a nice little twee analogy.
Let's imagine you are a bit past-your-best - say operating at 75% of the level you used to operate at.
Someone comes along and tells you that you can have a wonderful multi-organ transplant that will get you back up to 100% and make you feel thirty years younger.
If you were Jim Parker or Alpine Joe, you would instantly say "Yes please - sign me up for that. How could anyone be daft enough not to want to feel thirty years younger?"
If you were a bit more cynical, you might want to know what the chances of success were before signing up. If you were than told that there was a 70% chance you would die on the operating table, a 10% chance you would end up feeling worse than before, a 10% chance you would not notice any difference and a 10% chance you would feel thirty years younger, would you be keen to sign up?
If you then looked up the record of the surgeon who would perform the operation and found that he had been carrying out the procedure for forty years and had a zero percent survival record, I don't think you would be too bothered about what had caused the multiple deaths. Were they all bad luck? Were they all the anesthetist's fault? The nurse's fault?
No, you would say that whether he was unlucky, incompetent or malevolent the end result was the same.
|
|
Casting our minds back to the warm words issued, and public pronouncements made when the deal had been done, and it could be announced that Uncle Clarke, in addition to having provided the funds to help us finance squad strengthening to enable the first 'Great Escape' but was now additionally going to save us from Administration, as well as stick around to mastermind our transformation into a sustainable football club, back on the right road to success, helped in the greater part by the additional income generated by the facilities and possibilities that a new modern stadium would give us, it was surely the revelation of the existence of the 'Masters Agreement' that brought a smile of contented reassurance to most faces at the time. 
.
