shaun
1st team regular
Posts: 61
|
Post by shaun on Feb 22, 2024 13:49:22 GMT
Just heard this on Talksport.Ironic as Torquay fan Charlie Baker is presenting at the moment.
Not sure what it means.Can they continue playing etc.
The link to their statement is not working at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by borobob on Feb 22, 2024 14:20:19 GMT
It's sad that a huge Club such as Torquay should find itself in this predicament, and we know only too well how much of a problem that can be. The Chairman has today withdrawn his financing and stood down. I wish them well.
One side effect of administration, however, is that it attracts a sanction of a 10 point deduction!!
I wonder if they will hold on until the end of the season without taking the administration, or wait until the summer and take it next season?
It's been done before!!
|
|
|
|
Post by hawleybootboy on Feb 22, 2024 14:58:49 GMT
Club statement is they are looking to appoint administrators immediately so things not looking good. I suspect the process will be rolled-up before the end of the season and they either take a 3-4 step relegation or they fold at the season’s end and phoenix from Western League level.
|
|
Admin
Administrator 
Posts: 912
|
Post by Admin on Feb 22, 2024 17:50:27 GMT
In other news ...
|
|
|
|
Post by borobob on Feb 22, 2024 17:57:23 GMT
Just proves how precarious life is below the slush pit of money at the top!! Just one week of a top PL player's wages would almost certainly keep any non League side afloat for the season!!
The chase to get up amongst them is killing those below, from the Championship downwards!!
|
|
mickey
1st team regular
Posts: 136
|
Post by mickey on Feb 23, 2024 8:09:14 GMT
From the Athletic:
West Brom, however, can at least look forward with more optimism now. The same cannot be said about Torquay United, who were promoted to League One 20 years ago but have fallen on hard times since. Now in National League South, the English game’s sixth tier, the club announced they were going into administration on Thursday.
In a statement on the club’s website, their owner Clarke Osborne said: “The financing of football in this country is precarious and can only thrive in the lower divisions where there is either a close collaborative relationship with the local authority, it is a trophy asset or is backed by substantial local individuals and businesses.
“I believe that it needs a fundamental overhaul of its financing structure, rights distribution in the lower leagues and recognition that many clubs represent a fundamental part of the local community and its visitor attractions.”
|
|
|
|
Post by borobob on Feb 23, 2024 10:40:04 GMT
There is also a great need to enhance the 'Fit and proper persons' checks on individuals that attempt to take over Football Clubs, and agreements cannot be signed until such checks and guarantees are signed off by The F.A.
Maybe the setting up of a, non refundable financial Bond, before completing the takeover, to ensure the intentions of potential owners would help prove sincerity?
We've all seen the sharks that swim around in football, and the misery they can cause. It's not just the lower levels either, take Reading for example, but non league football in particular, by it's mainly volunteer operations, has many loopholes to fill in it's financial infrastructure, and leaves itself vulnerable to scams and money laundering operations!!
The increasing use of card use at turnstiles and food outlets has reduced the availability of ready cash, and the syphoning off of it, which is good. Card entries leave a trail, so it's difficult to hide.
I am not suggesting anything untoward re turnstile operators, or food vending outlets, or bars, run by very well meaning and honest volunteers in most cases, but cash does get handed further up the chain in clubs, and there will always be areas of possible 'adjustments' to takings if you get my meaning!!
You still won't stop rouge Officials not paying bills or wages, but they will show up very quickly to be answered, and false promises of new grounds/expansions etc, supported by glossy brochures and drawings and smooth talkers, should always be treated with suspicion at first.
Maybe we should also follow the German idea that no one person can hold more than 49% of any share allocation, allowing greater supporter control of their club, and that the Share holders should, by law, be handed up to date audited statements of account on a set date each year!
Every check and balance could be carefully covered, and questions asked.
Only with much closer scrutiny could serious problems be checked and, hopefully, overcome.
Maybe such scrutiny would deter any sharks from swimming too close!!
Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Bowen on Feb 23, 2024 12:55:26 GMT
The German football model is what we should be looking up to and is run very sustainably. There's a reason it averages the biggest attendance in a season across the Top 5 European Leagues.
I agree with the notion that we should bolster the fit and proper checks, because it seems clear to me that there are some people in football that have ruined clubs, whether that's their intention or not, and they have gone under, or perhaps only just stayed afloat.
It's a sad situation to see that a lot of these clubs are not living within their means, but then attention turns to the owners and directors, as to why they joined the club in the first place if it cannot be run sustainably. There are good owners in football and there bad owners in football as well as people arriving at clubs with reputations that precede them.
Of course, I'm not privy to the checks that take place, but if there is more and more mismanagement of budgets and finances occurring, then questions do need to be asked!
|
|
Phil M
1st team regular
Club Welder
Posts: 145
|
Post by Phil M on Feb 23, 2024 23:25:15 GMT
What exactly are you proposing the FA check for?  ? As someone who has been checked by the FA, I don't have mountains of money to pay a bond or throw at the club. Does that make me "not fit for purpose?" You're kind of asking for the impossible! How can they possibly tell what decisions you will make going forward? |
|
|
|
Post by hawleybootboy on Feb 24, 2024 7:31:23 GMT
The problem with ‘fit and proper person’ tests is there’s ways around everything. If there are any doubts over an individual then a clean corporate entity will become the owner which is fronted by squeaky clean individuals with the ‘undesirable’ individual becoming a person of significant or controlling interest in the company after everything is completed over the transfer of ownership into the new co. The co. remains the owner just the ultimate beneficiary changes… The ‘undesireable’ will also never hold any official position in the club, however their patsies will and they are in effect the power behind the throne.
Fit & proper person tests are merely window dressing for the FA etc. to appear to be doing something when in reality they are not… If 777 are allowed to take over Everton then this will most likely lead to the breaking of the current system when they go belly-up in around a year. Have a read-up on 777 via the Josimar site & the journalist Phillippe Auclair for their in depth reporting on exactly what they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by borobob on Feb 24, 2024 10:42:53 GMT
As an individual Director Phil, I am not advocating a bond being set up totally in the Director's name.
I am proposing that potential 'Owners' of the Club be prepared to purchase the Club and, as an act of goodwill
submit, with their statement of intent, a non refundable bond to allow the club to continue should they, (the new owner's), default or decide to sell on to a new owner in the future.
If this puts off any potential purchasers, then you have your answer!!
I also propose a F.A. should consider a new rule that no one person or corporate, should own more than 45% of the Club, the rest being sold to other shareholders as required, subject to acceptance by the Board of Directors, who can hold no more than 10% each.
It still won't stop a purchaser inviting some of his/her 'friends' to purchase shares, and still hold a majority, but it might help!!
|
|
Admin
Administrator
Posts: 912
|
Post by Admin on Feb 24, 2024 13:22:44 GMT
Leagues can do this now if they choose. No rule changes required. They tend not to shout when they've imposed a bond requirement, probably for reasons of commercial confidentiality i.e. a bond could well impact an owner's other business interests.
To make bonds mandatory would clearly be ludicrous, expensive and, arguably, a restraint of trade.
The reason the Torquay guy has walked is extremely simple. He's a property developer by trade and wanted to get his hands on the Plainmoor site (owned by Torbay Council) in return for building a new ground elsewhere in the borough. But the council weren't buying it and, given he'd been funding the club's extensive operating losses for years, he's had enough. Presumably he's tried to offload the club on a normal commercial basis but didn't find anyone daft enough to fund the cost of his losing bet, hence the current talk of administration (I've not seen it confirmed this step has actually happened yet).
Fortunately for us (and Aldershot), Rushmoor BC has adopted a position much the same as Torbay's to ward off speculators.
|
|
?