That’s just the historical cost of the assets. There’s about £2.3M depreciation/impairment to reduce that by before you get to the “book” value.
Even then, the values do seem high. Does the company own a training ground/gym facilities etc?
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Torquay United SOS (TUST submit bid to buy TUFC)
- Thread starter LittleAmerica
- Start date
Even then, the values do seem high. Does the company own a training ground/gym facilities etc?
the gate was without a doubt higher than 3642, popside was full, family stand was full and Bristows Bench was full, plus around 70 away fans. Attendance was more like 4,500+ but we already know we can't trust those currently still in place and running it day to day (Edwards and Hayman)
...and yet in full knowledge of that, you still gave them all that money 🤔
To coin a phrase... that's putting the gull in gullible.
If they're skimming off the top 800-900 or so paying customers, why would they not breach their own alleged 'ring-fence' and keep the rest for themselves too?
You have my total sympathy if/when you do go into administration, but as each day passes it looks more and more like you're all being played here ☹
How can they have an asset of £1.8m for land when they don’t own either the ground or training ground?
To be fair, we couldn't have known the gate would be misrepresented until it happened during the game, when we were all already at the game. Our supporters trust have set up their own crowdfunding separate from the official club effort as well, so we are well aware of the shenanigans.
Also, aside from the gate money, it was really important for perception to the wider football community and potetnial investors to show unity and a strong response, to show what the club can be under better stewardship.
If there had been a crowd of 400 after last weeks events everyone would have said, "ah well, clearly they don't care so why should we"
I didn't like the official TUFC social media post that thanked the Yellow Army for coming out in big numbers but didn't acknowledge the fans of other clubs who turned up to support - small thing for the club but a big issue for me
We haven't much liked anything coming out of the clubs official comms channels for quite some time now. So, just know that we Torquay fans are all incredibly grateful for all you greens who came along to support us. TUFC is much more than the current cretins still in situ but on borrowed time.
Erm, no, they'd have observed what a strong, well organised and unified boycott you'd all just delivered. It would send out the exact same message 'the fans care and are together on this'... just without giving CO all that money.
If 4,500 people had donated their match ticket/programme/beer/food money to the TUST fund instead then that money would be safe.
Because that was totally the right move for Aveley... "we don't trust you, get out of our club, you've stated your 'intention to go into administration' so p155 or get off the pot please'.
They can't inflate a gate to diminish the impact because them they'd have to pay tax on their 'ghost' income... but they can deflate it which is what you are saying they did.
...and 'spoiler alert' they won't be ploughing that money into running costs.
Seriously, we're on your side here, but you've gotta sharpen up guys, you're being too nice, too trusting.
Go back and look at Graham's dissection of what 'intending to appoint administrators' means to a business, its a delaying tactic. Also what A,B,C stands for👍🏻
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your point. Except to say, yes you and others like you would have understood a boycott, but on the strength of what you see and hear from people in general, their opinions and how they form them and the way the media report things, what % of the wider community would have had enough nouse to interpret that boycott correctly and what % would have judged it incorrectly?
It also wasn't clear until being at the game and having seen them, that Hayman and Edwards were very much still running the club for the time being. Or how long it is going to be before the administrators take control. Last week we thought it was literally happening the following day.
But we have attempted to direct any fundraising goodwill towards the Supporters Trust as opposed to the club itself.
Last edited:
Yep that's the way to go. I'll chuck over some Pasoti money as soon as the coast is clear of the leeches..
Until then. You should ignore EVERYTHING you read on the OS.
Ours fed us a crock of 💩 when we're pre admin. In fact during it wasn't much better. I can remember the texts misc'You're site is doing more harm than good' etc etc etc. 🥱
Without this site, AFT, GTs and James Brent, we would not have won the battle.
Believe no one that works for TUFC, they will have been orders as to what to say and when to say it.
Until then. You should ignore EVERYTHING you read on the OS.
Ours fed us a crock of 💩 when we're pre admin. In fact during it wasn't much better. I can remember the texts misc'You're site is doing more harm than good' etc etc etc. 🥱
Without this site, AFT, GTs and James Brent, we would not have won the battle.
Believe no one that works for TUFC, they will have been orders as to what to say and when to say it.
Nothing much in terms of the value of Land and Buildings and Plant and Machinery has changed since July 2016 and yet the accounts show that the leasehold value should depreciate 2% per annum plant and machinerty should depreciate at 15% per annum. The 2021 figures were £1,804,837 and £2,731,691 - both are higher over those five years despite the requirement to depreciate them. 15% of £2,608,431 is nearly £400,000 per annum for example. In 2023 TUFC owed Osborne's other company Riviera Stadium Ltd £4,567,000 according to the latter's accounts which is exactly the same as the value of the land and buildings / plant and machinery in the TUFC accounts.
It doesn't add up.
Graham, I am not great with accounts. Are you saying that with depreciation those 2016 figures should be way lower, but are essentially at the same level now. If so, to my untutored eye this feels fishy, is that how you or others with an accounting background read this? And if so what might be going on? Or is this perfectly normal/understandable/explainable?
All I am saying is that the accounting convention stated in successive yearly ccounts do not appear to have been applied. There may be a reason for it but it all seems as you say 'fishy'.
Argyle's plant and machinery value in their 2023 accounts, by comparison, was shown as £221,865 as opposed to TUFC's £2,731,691. I think that says it all. TUFC's value of plant and machinery in their accounts is more than ten times Argyle's - really!
