|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Oct 19, 2016 15:04:20 GMT
It might not mean insolvency though, because the creditors have agreed to accept shares in lieu of cash.
|
|
Joe
TFF member
Posts: 36 
|
Post by Joe on Oct 19, 2016 15:45:41 GMT
Cheap DEVELOPMENT site if you ask us.how did the
board of directors get lead down the garden bath.
tufc fans LTD told us this could happens. all so were is
tufc fansLTD now? and will thay help now,
|
|
hector
TFF member
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by hector on Oct 20, 2016 7:14:06 GMT
Cheap DEVELOPMENT site if you ask us.how did the board of directors get lead down the garden bath. tufc fans LTD told us this could happens. all so were is tufc fansLTD now? and will thay help now, Well, you would know the answer to that one wouldn't you, Colin? |
|
|
|
Post by bay52returns on Oct 23, 2016 20:44:32 GMT
let as all be there for each other and are beloved club ok
|
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Oct 23, 2016 22:48:21 GMT
let as all be there for each other and are beloved club ok Does this mean we will be seeing less of Joe? Did you join TUST in the end? |
|
Mark L
TFF member
Posts: 324
Favourite Player: Paul Baker
|
Post by Mark L on Oct 24, 2016 11:17:20 GMT
Well, the skeletons are out of the closet and it looks like 31st October is going to be the decision night on the community ownership idea. As expected, it's been confirmed that the club have an outstanding debt to GI payable early in 2017 and this has pushed things on a bit.
Somewhat frustrating that community ownership means we inherit a debt rather than the debt-free club handed to the current incumbents. It will be very interesting (and perhaps painful) to find out the exact magnitude of the manure we are buried in.
|
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Oct 24, 2016 15:35:58 GMT
Well, the skeletons are out of the closet and it looks like 31st October is going to be the decision night on the community ownership idea. As expected, it's been confirmed that the club have an outstanding debt to GI payable early in 2017 and this has pushed things on a bit. Somewhat frustrating that community ownership means we inherit a debt rather than the debt-free club handed to the current incumbents. It will be very interesting (and perhaps painful) to find out the exact magnitude of the manure we are buried in. I wonder if instead of TUST wasting precious money and resources on trying to resuscitate this zombie like club, wouldn't it be better to let TUFC go into liquidation and start over again. TUST could persuade the council to rent them plainmoor and then we could build a new club, based on community ownership, from the bottom up, with a proper youth programme and a reserve team. Sure it will be part time at first and probably have to start out in the peninsula league or western league, but it will probably be easier starting again from scratch than having to try and perform open heart surgery on a dying patient. |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Oct 24, 2016 20:32:32 GMT
We know that is not something the present board has chosen to countenance and I would be reasonably sure a large amount of the fan base would not want this either.
Do you really consider this as a solution and something you would choose to support away from Plainmoor - if that were the outcome - whilst property developers continued to circle around that very place, Pete? Although I note you mention a hypothetical whereby TUST could persuade the council in a scenario whereby we stayed at Plainmoor.
The TUFC Board are those charged with taking matters forward. They need to listen to all options and decide. They apparently are talking to various parties, albeit we only ever know that from TUST communications.
TUST will ensure its members are able to vote on important aspects along the way should they be involved in that taking of things forward by invite of the TUFC board. I'm sure even Alpine Joe would agree this should happen, even if he might choose to trot out something about lefties and elections along the way.
No doubt it would be TUST at the forefront of those trying to open up the debate to those supporters not inclined to be a member of a supporters trust, as well, as that has not really been this TUFC Board's way and seems unlikely to be the remit of a Pete Masters inspired supporters group.
|
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Oct 25, 2016 4:55:14 GMT
Originally I was very sceptical about community ownership, but after looking at other realistic options now consider it the only way forward. But the big problem here is that any monies raised by a community share offer would have to go straight to GI and Pete Masters. I think there will be a considerable problem in trying to encourage the wider community to line those two's pockets. That is why I think a new plainmoor based club may be a preferable option.
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,231
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 25, 2016 6:35:25 GMT
I think it (liquidation) is an option of last resort and is dependent on how deep we are in the do-do!! A community share issue would hopefully raise funds to pay off debts to keep the club going and also to provide the investment for on the pitch where we are woefully lacking. Obviously there is a limit as to how much can be raised based on similar ventures so a plan as to how it can be made to work needs to be formatted that the community can buy into (literally!) |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,231
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 25, 2016 7:32:41 GMT
The TUFC Board are those charged with taking matters forward. They need to listen to all options and decide. They apparently are talking to various parties, albeit we only ever know that from TUST communications. Considering the current board were very keen to improve communication when they came in they have been woeful in this regard, even to the extent of telling the fans to be quiet and not question them at a time when the reverse was really needed. I think it is partly due to not having the time and energy due to the limited numbers of directors as they grapple with just keeping the club afloat. Also. I get the sense that they were looking for a solution to the club's ills and to be able to say, yes we have sorted matters as opposed to really listening to the fan base as they make decisions. We have the likely scenario where the two fan forums they hosted are at the start and end of their tenure as directors... |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,231
|
Post by rjdgull on Oct 26, 2016 14:42:22 GMT
link - Herald Express now reporting on the 31st October deadline for the board to consider passing ownership to TUST and confirming the fans forum was put back due to this. Still somewhat critical that TUST have not amassed a load of cash and grateful to GI for investing their money earlier this year when they the board were "desparate."
|
|
Mark L
TFF member
Posts: 324
Favourite Player: Paul Baker
|
Post by Mark L on Oct 26, 2016 16:30:18 GMT
It's very easy to be critical of the board but Dave Phillips is right to feel disgruntled, because when you look at it, TUST has not really done anything to make itself a realistic option. The bottom line in this affair is money so when it comes down to it, why would the board seriously consider handing over the reins to TUST when it has no money? There is a world of difference between saying you can raise funds and succeeding in doing so. TUST should have been looking to get pledges that could be called upon when required. Or sold refundable bonds/shares that could be returned if the club decided against handing over to TUST. All TUST has actually done is tell everyone they are the best option. TUST has been quick to send 'open' letters to the board (without any reference to TUST members, it has to be said) telling them they aren't doing a good job but very short on specifics as to why TUST would be the best solution. If you're a fan believing TUST is the answer you really are living in la-la-land. At the end of this year I will become an ex-TUST member for sure. It's easy to be critical of any of the parties involved in the club. But they also all have their merits. Is Dave Phillips disgruntled by TUST? I don't honestly know. He seems keen on putting the club in the hands of a private investor but is that the right direction? Maybe. TUST has done plenty in trying to provide a last-resort safety net for the club which, essentially, is based on crowd-funding. There are a decent number of people who want the club to succeed so a community share-issue should be pretty lucrative. I also feel that a community ownership scheme could trigger a much greater involvement in the club by many fans who want to improve the club on a voluntary basis. Why will you be becoming an ex-TUST member? What have they/haven't they done to make you leave just when their raison d'etre is possibly about to be justified? Would you prefer the club to default on their loans and hand ownership to their creditors or go into administration without any organised effort to pick up the pieces? |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Oct 26, 2016 17:38:29 GMT
I think flo misses the point on what they have now and might have after a community share offer as per other clubs that have had to go down this route. To be fair, though, on first read you'd think Dave Phillips does also.
When first mooted, the Club got Pete Masters to shoo TUST away and we were told as fans not to rock the boat, as if anyone actually was. Masters' mate, Alpine, was jumping up and down a bit on a forum about fans having the audacity to want an audience from recollection, but I think that was it. At least meeting with a supporter group and having a fans forum appears progress compared to that shenanigans being trotted out while negotiations with the property developer continued.
It concerns me that Dave Phillips still misses the point on fundraising, but I consider him more savvy than that and suspect it is disingenuous whilst crossing fingers on a private bail out. It's either that or being badly informed. Perhaps that is where anyone dismissive of any supporter organisation will inevitably sit, also.
I do hope it is not Masters and GI that are our major suitors as well as major creditors. Probably fair to suggest most who have followed events would suspect that to be the case. Dave Phillips even talks of the monies GI put in 'to save us', so there's one of them 'accounted for' as property developers don't do gifts. Are we getting to a situation where someone is going to say do your pesky share issue if you want whilst we still get fed to the sharks. That would be wonderful, wouldn't it? I can see it happening and it worries me. The sharks absolutely love a bit of divide and rule. Apparently that's 'official' when it comes to supporters.
Why take out a potential safety net by withdrawing funds, flo?
|
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Oct 26, 2016 19:28:21 GMT
TUST was always going to be the board's last resort. I don't believe that the board think TUST can save the club, but if things stay as they are the only two possible outcomes are administration or take over by GI, and the board do not want to be seen as the culprits, so they hand the club to TUST who they think will fail and can say they (ie the board) have a clear conscience.
Realistically what chance have TUST got to raise the money needed to cover these loans (reckoned to be between £50k and £100k, depending on who you believe) in less than 3 months, considering that period covers Christmas when people have other things to worry about spending their money on?
|
|
