The future of TUST

Indeed excellent stuff by Jon as it always without fail is. However AJ is an excellent correspondent on this site too and his humour with sometimes his tongue firmly in cheek quite often has me in stitches. I don't reply to his postings but I still giggle when I see the next one. He does of course go to every home game and his reports of the half time antics are always a highlight of the whole weekend for me.

Now can I make a sensible suggestion. Stewart, you are the one who keeps baiting him and as long as you do that you will get a riposte from AJ. For me, I am happy to listen to his views (even though I am often unsure if they are actually that!) and I am also pleased to be able to assimilate views from the likes of Jon and Rob. If we all thought the same it would be a boring world (my maths and rugby teacher Alan Harris said that to our class in 1963 when I was 11 - as true today as when he said it).

Anyway, quite how you can be upset about something you say you don't read is a mystery to me. I think you may be fibbing!

I am certain that Clarke Osborne WANTS to extract a profit from his investment, but not as certain as you that he WILL extract a profit from his investment.

Turning the club into a viable commercial enterprise that generates sufficient profits that it can be sold as such AT A PRICE WHICH WOULD TURN A PROFIT ON THE VENTURE is a nice idea, but no more than that.

How many clubs at our level (say League 2 to National North/South) actually return profits that make them an attractive business venture (i.e. as a going concern not a land deal)? Not one. How many times since its formation in 1921 has Torquay United AFC Ltd paid a dividend? Not once.

The profit opportunity is from a land deal. Is it possible that a land deal could make a developer a profit AND be beneficial to Torquay United FC? Yes.

Is it likely that the current owner of TUFC would fight to get the best deal for TUFC in such a scenario? Of course not, because he IS the property developer and so he will seek to maximise the property developer's return. Nobody at the club will represent the interests of the club so that will be up to the fans.

Given Osborne's track record, he is highly unlikely to actually build a new stadium anyway.

If Osborne is denied the freehold, it will be because fans have fought and lobbied against a sale of the freehold being sneaked through under the radar. I know TUST officers have worked hard on this so they can hold their heads high. Individual fans - TUST members and non-members - have also done their bit. Would fans have lobbied as successfully without TUST existing? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

But it is ridiculous to say that TUST has been irrelevant in the whole process.

My biggest regret though is that TUST's success has been in a defensive holding strategy to stop a freehold stitch-up. How much more positive would TUST's contribution have been if Phillips and Balson had actually given the fans the opportunity to stop the club falling into hands of property developers in the first place?

TUST's work on preparing to rally supporters to save the club was unsuccessful because of the decision by Phillips and Balson to hold secret meetings with Gordon Oliver and to market the club to property developers.

I still would not say that TUST's work was irrelevant, even if unsuccessful.

Some will spin that the club nearly died from apathy and deserves to die because of that apathy. Why didn't the fans do something? They did, but they were betrayed. The end result might be the same, but don't let anyone say that fans stood back and did nothing.

Alpine Joe is coming up with his old chestnut that the response to a low-key email to members is equal to the response to a genuine and managed campaign backed by all parties to raise significant funds to rescue the club.

I never understood the reason behind the half-cocked pre-share issue as it was doomed to fail. That ill-explained half-baked episode was the one serious disagreement I have ever had with any move that Michael Goulbourne made. It muddied the water and was manna from heaven for a Alpine Joe's anti-TUST propaganda machine - just as I had predicted it would be.

Would I dive into the freezing harbour to save a drowning child? I like to think I would. Would I dive into a freezing harbour if there were no drowning child to save, just to prove that I would do it if there were one? No, I wouldn't and don't think many others would either.

But would anyone seriously conclude that this was conclusive proof that everyone would happily stand back and watch a child drown?

Probably the best move but don't go away....you put in a valuable contribution with years of experience of the club and it is nice to be reminded that there were such times. For my part I do not mind seeing differing views put forward on a forum. As you indicate AJ is clearly a very intelligent man and I always think there is a very large tongue in cheek with a lot of it, but it does get countered by equally intelligent responses. In a democracy you debate and listen and decide (it normally works a lot better than it did with that bloody referendum)

        




Jon




I enjoy Jon’s little stories as much as anyone. The harrowing tale of the drowning child in the freezing harbour was a tough read. However, these short stories can often miss out crucially important facts, and while deception by omission is probably the last thing Jon intends, rather than swallow his story along with the freezing sea water, it is important to keep in mind the less than subtle alterations that set this gripping and spine chilling ‘freezing harbour’ story a long way apart from events that took place at TUFC.

'But would anyone seriously conclude that this was conclusive proof that everyone would happily stand back and watch a child drown?' 

Now this, as we know, was the exact opposite of the question that was, and needed to be asked at the time. No one was trying to prove who would stand back, instead we were preoccupied with who was most likely to save the drowning child, should they jump in.

Remember what TUST said as they observed the drowning child. They demanded that anyone else able to jump in and save the child be sent away. Then, when asked if they could swim or had any life saving badges, had to admit they had none. But their plan was to appeal for money in order to purchase some swimming lessons, in the slim hope that they might have time to learn to swim before the child had drowned.

And one other rather important condition. And you’ll all remember the dates of the exclusivity deal that TUST demanded. If TUST failed to raise sufficient money for swimming lessons, then they made sure it would be too late for anyone else to jump in and save the child. In effect ‘Pay for our lessons or the child gets it’

In reality the common sense approach of evaluating the various schemes to save the child, and then selecting the one most likely to succeed, was the one that was taken.

Now, of course if Mark Spitz or Sharron Davies were standing at the harbourside ready to dive in, we’d have accepted their offer like a shot. But how do you know that someone offering to save the kid won’t actually hold his head underwater and drown him ?.....then maybe drain the harbour and build some bungalows ? Thankfully, renowned Lifesaver Pete Masters was on hand to draw up a ‘watertight guarantee’, which was just what was needed with all that freezing water about. Then we remembered that it was a Council owner harbour, and that they’d never allow it to be drained unless a bigger and better Olympic sized swimming pool with wave machine, water chute etc was firstly built for all the children of the area to enjoy in safety.

Even if, and it’s a long way from certain, TUST had ever reached the stage that it could have jumped in, how long would it have managed to have kept the child’s head above water?. And would the Community have realised it wasn’t solely a one off payment, but that a commitment to keep paying towards the welfare of the floundering pair in the harbour was required, the child slowly dying of hypothermia as TUST’s ever weakening doggy paddle achieved nothing resembling the long term sustainable safety that the most sensible plan actually chosen is on course to deliver.


The feebly weak TUST lifeguard looked as if he needed saving himself, let alone having the slightest clue how to save anyone else.
A future in which we'll be waving rather than drowning was the overwhelmingly sensible one to choose at the time, and definitely remains so. TUST continues to splash about in the paddling pool while conning themselves they could have won Olympic gold if only they'd been given the chance. Keep enjoying their stories, but remember just how divorced from reality they are

He certainly must spend quite a bit of time ompiling and churning out the text. Not sure it isn’t counter productive? Could he be a bot?