[Apollo11]

cassidystash wrote:

The comments are understandable though. We have some of the best players in this league and the strongest squad in the league. What we don’t have is the best manager. For clarity, I think he’s done OK, but “could/must do better” is a fair assessment.

We also have some players that aren’t the best in the league. We’ve also had an injury to a key striker which kept him out for almost two months. We’ve also had off-the-field noise a bit too loud in recent weeks.

We’ve also got absolutely no right to presume that because we were fairly well-equipped to do well that we actually would do well. That’s not really how football works – it’s still a bit of a lottery when there are other teams battling and bullying their way forward in this league. But you can mitigate against that as much as possible – and I think we did do. We fell a bit short for a spell, and our ongoing away form has been average, and those things have cost us the title. But we’ve been relatively consistent across the whole season and we’re still in with a shout of getting promotion. So I’d say Butler has done quite well.

[Apollo11]

We’re still in with two possibilities for promotion. One of them is highly unlikely and out of our hands (ie. results elsewhere required on Saturday) and the other is through the Play Offs.

It’s not ideal as there is still the element of jeopardy at this late stage when we might have already wrapped things up. But it’s a bit much to keep reading comments about how we should have absolutely pissed the league and Butler is a failure. It smacks of entitlement.

[Apollo11]

Patrick0811 wrote:

That’s fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
I am just going to have a cup of tea

You sure it’s not a cup of Kool Aid?

[Apollo11]

Patrick0811 wrote:

In this free country everyone has the right to do what they like

Piss poor nonsense to justify morally redundant behaviour.

[Apollo11]

Patrick0811 wrote:

I feel if your club had won the league,and not be in the play offs again, there would not be the interest in Mr Hiltons business interests?

Wrong.

[Apollo11]

Patrick0811 wrote:

if you constantly attack someone who has moved on, it means you can not/have not moved on yourself

Hilton’s tenure is an actual part of our Club’s history so we’re entitled to discuss him as often as we see fit.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rene Artois

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

Little chance of that though if Hilton gets the club you saddos will be wanting it to fail won’t you.

No. We’ll be wanting him to fuck off, and the Club to survive and prosper.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut, Siderite

[Apollo11]

shall we go through all the anti democratic guff we went through after brexit.

… and how’s that worked out for ya?

[Apollo11]

Iron-awe wrote:

He started at Kings Lynn and I think the general view is at the moment he is more effective as an impact sub, I go along with that, the threat of him running at tiring defenders in the last twenty five minutes or so has been very entertaining to watch and has brought more goals. Unless through injury he has to start I would make him sub right through all our remaining fixtures this season.

I agree. I’d much rather see Ubaezuonu start and Federa as an impact sub.

[Apollo11]

he is young and is allowed the odd duff game, its part of his experoencing building, you know that.

All players are allowed the odd duff game.

Federa’s impact on our season has been tangible, he’s provided a lift, some excitement and some decent action. Personally, I think in the last couple of matches he may have been a little nervous, starting to overthink things slightly and also actually bullied out of his game a bit (Kings Lynn).

[Apollo11]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Wouldn’t a more positive spin and actually stating the facts that Matlock fans support and welcome the Hilton taking full control of the club by voting for the proposal “A”’

Ridiculous, man.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

Wouldn’t a more positive spin and actually stating the facts that Matlock fans support and welcome the Hilton taking full control of the club by voting for the proposal “A”

One man one vote democracy unlike yours Apollo on another thread where your wanting to buy votes, where 9 life members could get voted down by one monthly contributor.

One £10 contribution one vote. So 12 £10 contributors could have the same say voting power as a £120 contributor. That’d be up to the 12 to cooperate and coordinate themselves, and the perceived disparity might encourage them to commit their support in a more tangible and meaningful way.

[Apollo11]

He’ll get in. There seems to be next to no visible resistance.

[Apollo11]

MK Iron wrote:

If you’re a half decent footballer on a grand a week and James Perch arrives on 4 grand a week you’re miffed.
If you’re a journeyman National League player on a grand a week and someone joins your team that scores 20 goals and double figure assists in a season but is on 2 grand a week then you’re delighted.

Completely disagree. It’s not the done thing. If there’s a particular wage structure in place for sustainability reasons it should apply to all.

[Apollo11]

MK Iron wrote:

If there is one player worth bending (or even breaking) our wage structure for it is Roberts.

It would be crazy for him to stay here if we remain in NLN but if we did stagger through the play offs who knows. Personally I think now he has proved his long term fitness a few EFL clubs will be making him offers but currently no League 1 or 2 clubs in his neck of the woods unless York win the National League playoffs.

You can’t set up a sensible wage structure in the aim of sustainability and then just go and break it for one player. All the others would be rather miffed.

[Apollo11]

cassidystash wrote:

Or whether our lower wage structure offer is better or close to Gateshead et al. Similar situation for the other OOCs I’d have thought.

Perhaps, yes. Michelle did, a little while ago, allude to the fact that some players prefer the security of longer contracts even if that means lower wages. So that might come into play.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

If the cods can afford him so can we they lost £1.68 million last season, ours chicken feed to theirs.

It’s all about whether he’ll accept lower wages in line with the new wage structure, when he’s out of the old contract and offered a new one. You’d guess not. Who would?

[Apollo11]

Deereyme66 wrote:

But definitely not 1899 stylee!

Indeed.

[Apollo11]

ironfromafar wrote:

just why Hilton even wants a football club is still a bit baffling ..

It’ll all come out in the wash.

1 user thanked author for this post.

BigLeftToe

[Apollo11]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Awaywego wrote:

There’s nothing stopping you at the moment contributing monthly there hardly likely to turn money down.
Let’s see those direct debits or standing orders being set up.

There isn’t but you gleefully neglect Apollo’s points. Something along the lines of tiered membership with either more votes or other small but significant benefits in return for a higher subscription would act as an incentive. None of us are rich philanthropists with deep pockets. Some meaningful recognition commensurate with the level of donation is a standard membership model.

Like the tiers on a Patreon subscription or a Kickstarter donation, etc.

[Apollo11]

Iron-awe wrote:

Wishful thinking regarding him staying I think.

Agreed. I think when the Gateshead offer came in he did the decent thing and expressed his loyalty to the immediate cause by staying. Fair play – thanks Callum. Good luck with your move to wherever in the summer.

[Apollo11]

cassidystash wrote:

“HEREFORD boss Paul Caddis said his side will ‘attack’ their final league game of the season on Saturday when they welcome third placed Scunthorpe.”

Not meaningless to them then. If Butler decides to attack it could be a good watch.

It’s not meaningless to us, either. As I keep saying, despite the unlikely scenario required, it’s still mathematically possible to be Champions, with a win at Hereford being one of the essential moving parts.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

There’s nothing stopping you at the moment contributing monthly there hardly likely to turn money down.

That’s absolutely correct – and people do already contribute to the Trust regularly through other fundraising things they do. Here, we’re talking about expanding the parameters of the membership scheme (so that there is a significant and predictable flow of money).

5 users thanked author for this post.

MosbyCumner, Cliff Byrne's Right Peg, North Lincolnshire Irons, MK Iron, Deereyme66

[Apollo11]

MK Iron wrote:

Even the miracle scenarios involve us having to win Apollo. Probably by a hatfull of goals as well.

I know, but that’s not actually outside the realms of possibility.

For the record, I’m not expecting to win, and I don’t think it’s probable that we’ll get any kind of result. But it’s not actually impossible. We could still be Champions.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

If i won the Euro millions I wouldn’t even buy Scunthorpe let alone another club, but each to their own.

If you won the Euro Millions you’d complain that you’d been ripped off by having to pay the entry fee.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

No. most owners of clubs have no affiliation with the clubs they take on or want to take on.

You could very well be right in terms of huge Clubs (which have ceased to be FCs and are just multi-national corporate entities). But in terms of smaller clubs, I don’t agree that that’s the case.

[Apollo11]

MK Iron wrote:

A meaningless game in terms of results.

I know what you’re saying, but that’s not quite true… Mathematics says that there could still, even at this fifty-ninth second of the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, be some sort of a twist.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

Isn’t it refreshing to see someone with no affiliation to a club donating

Does that in itself not set your internal alarm bells ringing, AWG ..?

[Apollo11]

unity iron wrote:

I would also pay a monthly or yearly subscription happily.

I believe many would – though some wouldn’t. This is a point I’ve raised before. Tier the membership, so the number of votes per person reflects contributions – those who only want to pay £10 for life (1 vote), £10 per season (2 votes), or £10 per month (10 votes). Or whatever…

2 users thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons, Deereyme66

[Apollo11]

cassidystash wrote:

Didn’t start on Monday.

That’s true, my apologies.

[Author]

Posts