[Apollo11]

Iron414 wrote:

Agree. Had to rewind several times due to mumbling. Jury’s still out on Butler for me, but he’s set out his stall that promotion is the aim and anything less will be a failure just like it was for Jimmy. Let’s hope he can deliver.

Just send him on a quick course to get the speech sorted out. There are providers around Scunthorpe. The alternative is another year of hundreds of people shouting “What did he say?” at the radio.

[Apollo11]

WonderGoals wrote:

According to Butler the information given paints a different picture to Butterfield’s wife. 3 contracts offered with one offering a player/coaching role and turned them all down.

They aren’t the actions of a club/manager who aren’t bothered with losing a player and not putting effort in to keep them. End of the day we have a budget and Butterfield wanted the same money he was getting before, which was silly money for this level and we weren’t prepared to pay it.

End of story.

Not quite the all-time hero and legend profile his Mrs has been campaigning for, then.

[Apollo11]

WonderGoals wrote:

I thought he was brilliant. You can tell how much he loves the club and you can’t buy that when signing a manager. Butler’s love for the club shines through and I think he’ll do a good job.

I don’t disagree. But he needs to speak more clearly – sometimes it’s hard to catch everything he’s saying. I felt the same about JD but he didn’t have anything worth listening to anyway.

[Apollo11]

cassidystash wrote:

Yes, fair enough, but has she any reason to post other than the truth.

As I have said before on this thread, it is more likely that her saying that is down to an expectation that the club would keep coming back with better offers once the initial one had been turned down, and feeling affronted that they did not. So she believes, probably, that they did not ‘fight’ to keep Butterfield.

The other side of that coin, then, is that the club has implemented a strict wage structure and is very good at sticking to it. Well done, imho.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Apollo11]

Sadly you’re missing a key fact – he doesn’t fit into Andy’s plans.

We only really have this bit of information out in the public domain because it is what Butterfield’s wife said. It’s her interpretation of the situation rather than absolute fact.

[Apollo11]

Ferrite wrote:

Apollo11 wrote:

Maybe that’s where there was also a bit of a sting in this for him, too.

There’s no doubting that the Hilton legacy will lead to a two-tier wage structure this summer but equally I’d expect – even hope – the club listens to offers for players on Hilton money, particularly Roberts.

Agreed. My point, really, was that perhaps that two-tier thing is why Butterfield and his wife felt so affronted? Perhaps they imagined that, as he was so popular, Butler and the club would bend their own ‘new financial rules’ just to keep him, and perhaps it took them by surprise that they would not – hence the outpourings on social media.

[Apollo11]

Siderite wrote:

Couldn’t trust the rumours around Hilton, despite them coming true and sketchy Company’s House record, but we should definitely believe in these. The club don’t need to confirm anything about Butterfield’s wage details in these negotiations. If he wasn’t part of Butler’s plans, he could have just been released, but this is hardly scandal of the century.

Pretty sure I said this earlier up the thread. Maybe Butler would like to have kept him, but wasn’t prepared to break the new wage structure.

Interestingly, it’s possible that (say) Clunan is still going to be on the same wage as last season as his contract hadn’t expired… and Butterfield would have had to take a drastically reduced wage. He’d have been on ‘coat according to cloth’ cash while a lesser player remained on Disney money.

Maybe that’s where there was also a bit of a sting in this for him, too.

[Apollo11]

… if this is Butlers way of saying he doesn’t want Butterfield in his team then I hope he learns to be more honest in the future.

More likely that Butterfield had been on utterly ridiculous ‘Disney money’ for this league last season and was then offered a wage commensurate with Division 6 football, and reasonable on the club’s part.

Perhaps Butler and the Club believed Butterfield would ‘see sense’ and accept, realising that the previous high wage was an unrealistic ‘one off’.

My guess (based on the ‘fraction more than minimum wage’ comment from his wife on social media) is he has been offered about 30k and had previously been on about 75.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Apollo11]

If, as Mrs Butterfield suggests, Jacob wasn’t in the manager’s plans then why offer him a contract at all?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Apollo11]

Here’s what Butterfield’s wife had to say, at the cult page, about the contract situation.

4 users thanked author for this post.

BigLeftToe, Awaywego, TheJuryeffsOut, cassidystash

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

Would seem the club deems it acceptable to use a Jack Daniels logo on one of the new tee shirts, not good form imo

It’s not the Jack Daniel’s logo, it’s a pastiche of it. There is a difference between taking and using the exact logo someone has designed and artworked, and using a pastiche of a logo, an homage to it etc etc.

[Apollo11]

People suggesting Hilton is coming on here and stirring the pot should ask themselves why he would waste time bothering and, more importantly, from where he’d even get any new intimate information on Boardroom activity?

I mean, he MIGHT come on here and stir it up… The big point is, where would he get fresh Boardroom information from (working on the assumption it is true / correct)?

[Apollo11]

64 wrote:

If people are annoyed and leaking perhaps they should just leave , egos are great aren’t they?
What we know for sure is Michelle the shares are in her name but she doesn’t “own” them. In her Bru interview she said people had given her money to get the club and stabilise it and that she would be transferring shares to those people, we know that at least one person complaining ,if you believe it, is famed for putting nothing in .

People suggesting Hilton is coming on here and stirring the pot should ask themselves why he would waste time bothering and, more importantly, from where he’d even get any new intimate information on Boardroom activity?

More likely – as 64 points out – that someone is becoming increasingly marginalised, and is annoyed and deliberately leaking info for the sake of causing unrest, and personal point-scoring or political gain…

[Apollo11]

MK Iron wrote:

Just see it as a way of helping the club financially when they (we) need it most.

I did win a small prize and donated it back. I would and will do the same whatever the prize until we are debt free. When we get to that point I would prefer the prize to be in club shares or at least to have that as an option.

On that topic I know the board are looking into this but if there was a simple way of buying shares in say £100 blocks I think the rest of the debt could be cleared very quickly.

Donating back only makes sense if the prize you win is financial.

[Apollo11]

ironfromafar wrote:

… how fitting would it be to be called the John Staff Museum…

I genuinely respect the sentiment on show, here – but any future museum housing Scunthorpe United stuff ought to be very clear about what it is (ie. it should be called The Scunthorpe United Museum) imho. There would be slightly more fitting ways to remember Staffy within it, I think.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

… the numbers haven’t increased to allow the jackpot prize to rise like they said it would do…

Perhaps they actually just have a specific target number of subscribers they want to reach, at which point the jackpot prize goes up?

[Apollo11]

TwoWrights wrote:

Talk of Swann losing £8m is just that, talk. It takes no account of group tax relief, which he probably took advantage of.

So did he put more in than he (eventually) took out?

[Apollo11]

Apollo11 wrote:

Awaywego wrote:

… it’s a business like 64 once said, so within that in mind I won’t contribute to anything else other than match tickets just the same as with previous incumbents.

That is quite the ridiculous thing to say and a terrible attitude to have. Surely you have learned, in the time since Michelle and co took over (and most have realised what is at stake, and started putting proper love and care into the club) that United is much more than just a business?

On reflection, it’s absolutely and entirely your prerogative to only buy match tickets. Not everyone has the inclination – or the ability – to give.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

… it’s a business like 64 once said, so within that in mind I won’t contribute to anything else other than match tickets just the same as with previous incumbents.

That is quite the ridiculous thing to say and a terrible attitude to have. Surely you have learned, in the time since Michelle and co took over (and most have realised what is at stake, and started putting proper love and care into the club) that United is much more than just a business?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Apollo11]

Sanfran49 wrote:

Still do not understand how someone spends £11m can then ask for the £11M back when he it was he who loaned the club the money that he then spent having loaned HIMSELF the money and did so with seeking advice as to how risky the whole thing was !!

You just said it yourself. He loaned the club the money.

2 users thanked author for this post.

IronIronIron, SODIron

[Apollo11]

A man who put a lot of time, thought and effort into the club, and therefore a loss.

I seem to think it was for the whole season, but do others remember him being on the front of the programme in the mid-80s?

[Apollo11]

I would look at it like this: under his stewardship, SUFC lost £11m. By transfering the ground to his ownership and receiving £3m for it, he has reduced his losses to £8m.

Had he not done that, his losses (which I repeat were accrued when he was owner & chairman of the club) would have remained £11m.

The ‘losses’ can’t be both his AND the club’s though, surely?

Wouldn’t it be a more accurate appraisal to say that he put 11m into the club and got 3m out by selling the ground to Michelle and her CIC..?

Therefore HE lost 8m.

Even then, the term ‘lost’ actually suggests he got nothing for his money. I’d completely disagree. He got plenty. Amongst many other things he got the kudos of being able to say he was a league football club chairman, and the privilege of being able to sit at the head of the Board and direct its future.

So I think ‘spent’ would be a better way to put it, rather than ‘lost’. He spent, in the end, on balance, 8m. An expensive ego trip!

[Apollo11]

I’m no Swann apologist, at all, but I do appreciate fairness and balance.

As I said earlier, Swann removing GP from the club and transferring it to Foolsilk was totally unforgivable (from a club and community perspective) but understandable (from a selfish business perspective).

Additionally, which do people find preferable? Swann’s method of dealing with those people who questioned him and called out, or Hilton’s? In other words: Solicitor’s letter or vile online attacks, doxxing and threats?

[Apollo11]

64 wrote:

“Regarding the ground and Hilton the situation was the same when he left as it was when he arrived.”
After claiming he had the cash, starting the 1899 club while still claiming he had the cash .
It’s hard to be balanced regarding Swann as my history with him is fractious to say the least and I really don’t like him but I’ll say this ,he did put his money where his mouth was to his own huge financial detriment

Neither of them exactly painted themselves in glory.

I’ll echo sentiments further up this thread – though unforgivable, Swann transferring the ground into his own company asset was at least understandable.

[Apollo11]

A busy weekend meant that I was unable to listen to the documentary when it aired, but I was able to hear it on catch-up when driving to work this morning.

A very good piece which told the story in broad brush-strokes. It was still interesting and at times emotional and would have given the casual listener a decent idea of how troubled and triumphant things have been on the Iron rollercoaster. The half-hour run time of this programme didn’t really do the twisting nature of the story much justice – but we should be grateful that our club was given any national air time at all.

I do think the last few years is a compelling story and I’m sure there’s a more in-depth version of it waiting to be told. A multi-part radio series, a Netflix-type documentary or even a feel-good film in the Brassed Off, Calendar Girls or Full Monty ‘plucky community’ vein. If Ian Sharp is worth his salt he’s all over this already.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Apollo11]

64 wrote:

I reckon Iron_Bru ,The Iron Trust and Matt Blanchard are being airbrushed out of this story. The Iron trust made the ground an asset of community value,Iron bru led the fight in showing where Swann was going wrong and ousting Hilton at a considerable risk and toll .Matt B set up the gofundme ,it appears that this BBC guy thought Matt “Bell ” did that

It’s important that these contributions are recognised. Perhaps Iron Hour will issue some engraved tin goblets in the near future.

[Apollo11]

Dubai fan wrote:

According to Hilton

Agreed. But (correct me if I’m wrong) that’s two or three times he’s singled Elliott out as a bit suspect in statements he’s made since leaving the club.

[Apollo11]

One of the most interesting bits is the reference to, right before Michelle stepped forward, Simon Elliott telling Hilton he (Hilton) was still the right man for the job.

[Apollo11]

What you doing on there?

Getting any kind of info to bring back to your pals?

Just playing Devil’s advocate here, but this looks like you’re calling out 64 for… well… more-or-less exactly what you’re doing on here?

Edit to add: Apologies if I have misinterpreted your post, of course!

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

I agree the club should recognize them I suggested one route that cost nothing you objected, how should the club recognize them Apollo11.
Should Michelle not have been recognized by the north lincs business awards? which without Cass couldn’t have started this thread.
Recognition from ones peers is the greatest recognition of all imo.

The route you suggested was a route that the Club could otherwise earn money from, so it would not have made sense in the current climate.

I have no objection whatsoever to the fundraisers receiving, say, a public note of thanks from the Club on the website or over the loudspeaker prior to a match or something along those lines.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Awaywego

[Author]

Posts