[Apollo11]

I seldom bother having a look on the Facebook group – but I just did. It’s so galling to see Herbert on a charm offensive after months of being the abuser-in-chief.

[Apollo11]

CMC wrote:

Hull City have banned one of their fans doing vlogs, but they’re a more professional operation than we are right now.

Perhaps more to do with questionable tone and content rather than the actual doing of a vlog?

[Apollo11]

Iron-awe wrote:

Fair enough Apollo 11, LBH, Whitehall is a pale shadow of Steve Torpey in the role he is playing for us this season, no comparison whatsoever, he is not a good target man type player and needs to be part of a pair up top to be effective enough IMO.

I do like Whitehall, but I completely agree with you. I would like to see him in a partnership with some short-arsed terrier who scores 15 to 20 goals per season.

[Apollo11]

It’s common sense. There’s a clear line being crossed and I am sure the club (or whoever should do so) will address it.

Do I want to go inside the ground and take photos and videos of the match or of my mates and perhaps put some of them online on my socials? Of course I do, yes.

Do I want to go inside the ground and take photos of people who are unaware that they are being photographed, and then publish them online in a publicly accessible group? No, of course not.

[Apollo11]

Iron-awe wrote:

Where does all that leave people like Gareth who does a great job with Iron Army, has he an appropriate licence?, I presume he has the club’s permission to film inside and around the ground but there are loads of you tube vlogs for a huge amount of football clubs run every week in this country, where do they all stand legally?

I imagine that most clubs, SUFC included, turn something of a blind eye to this stuff – the rules around equipment, and the fact that their supporters take photos, videos, whatever (ie. it’s the nature of modern life). However, in the case of these crowd photos I suspect they’ll draw a line and ask the person taking and publishing them to stop because they are intrusive.

[Apollo11]

Iron-awe wrote:

Apollo11 wrote:

premier iron wrote:

If Carver and Bennett are doing so well at Southport then why aren’t they with us.Those two have got to be better than Whitehall (who is a joke) and Elliott

I suspect that, just like Torpey, Whitehall “does things you can’t see”…

Torpey was in the centre backs face constantly and held the ball up by being strong and aggressive, Whitehall is none of those things IMO.

I wasn’t really comparing him to Torpey.

[Apollo11]

Aside from anything else, that means that no-one unlicensed to photograph, film or broadcast audio from the game is actually allowed to bring in a mobile phone.

[Apollo11]

64 wrote:

…Hilton’s scheme was misleading from the beginning… …This is much simpler…

In other words… Then: Ponzi. Now: Prizes.

[Apollo11]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Quick search brings up this.
“ If you took the photo, you usually own it. But, if you didn’t take the photo but you are in it, someone could breach your rights (such as data protection or privacy rights) by posting it.”
I’ll bring it up at GP.

Whatever the legalities, it’s highly intrusive (as well as being a bit odd). Most people, I suspect, would accept that the club has the right to publish their own images – as long as they have all photography waiver notices for crowd events displayed around the ground or printed on tickets (or whatever legal stuff they need to fulfil). But a private individual taking this type of photo and publishing feels like a different thing – a little bit unsettling. The privacy issue: If I had children published in an image in this fashion I would not be happy.

[Apollo11]

premier iron wrote:

If Carver and Bennett are doing so well at Southport then why aren’t they with us.Those two have got to be better than Whitehall (who is a joke) and Elliott

I suspect that, just like Torpey, Whitehall “does things you can’t see”…

[Apollo11]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Deereyme66 wrote:

I Notice that supporter with the camera and long lens is still posting tons of intrusive shots of supporters in stands. His mates seem to like it but does everyone else like their dopey fizzogs plastered all over Facebook? What if you’d skived off work to go to the match and your boss sees a pic of you at GP? Does he have permission to snap fans and post them on the internet from GP officials?

Good point, I’m not sure what the legal standpoint would be with this, I’ll bring it up at the club.
I personally think he shouldn’t be doing it.

He should not.

[Apollo11]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Not looked on there for a while. Notice that supporter with the camera and long lens is still posting tons of intrusive shots of supporters in stands. His mates seem to like it but does everyone else like their dopey fizzogs plastered all over Facebook? What if you’d skived off work to go to the match and your boss sees a pic of you at GP? Does he have permission to snap fans and post them on the internet from GP officials?

I can just about accept it if it’s the club doing it as it’s a marketing exercise, but I don’t like the publishing crowd photography on the internet thing at all. If a private individual not in the employ of the club is taking and then posting photographs in a Facebook group – which seem to be taken from long distance – then yes, you are right. It is intrusive and even creepy – and I suspect there are legal issues around doing so.

[Apollo11]

cassidystash wrote:

… we gave the ball away too often with wayward (simple) passes.

Kouogun playing their striker in was something to behold…

1 user thanked author for this post.

lesgeo

[Apollo11]

CMC wrote:

Anyone who reads that group seen the long post from Paul Spry?

Dear oh dear how wrong can you be?

What does he say?

[Apollo11]

It’s can be attractive to watch when we’re making 20 to 30 passes out from the back (and sideways), messing with the opposition’s shape and pulling it about to create holes. But the effort becomes pointless when we get into a shooting position and then just pass it sideways again with, often, less chance of scoring or the move completely breaking down. That’s when, for me, patience with Jimmy Dean’s style wears really thin. Being a little more direct up front wouldn’t go amiss.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lesgeo

[Apollo11]

we will get stuck in this division for a while.

Agreed. It’s a ‘now or never’ / one shot only kind of a deal.

[Apollo11]

Yes, Simon loves the attention..

I think it’s probably more accurate to say he loves the adulation, which this is not.

[Apollo11]

Awaywego wrote:

If you think this guy is such an arsehole why give him so much airtime. He’ll be laping it up.

Are you talking about Elliott, or Sherbert?

[Apollo11]

Siderite wrote:

I think Elliott claims Herbert showed up at Barnard Castle unannounced and spotted him in the pub, before clinging on to him. I have been told he is not liked around the club, but I think they humour him. Still, humouring or not, he should be given the cold shoulder.

A couple of times on social media Sherbert made some reference to having a drink together in a pub at Barnard Castle. There was even the inference that Hilton had been there too, and that there had been a toast when Elliott said one day he (Elliott) would “be King”. Sherbert tagged Elliott in one of the posts, and Elliott was clearly very uncomfortable. A sort of “I don’t know what you’re talking about” response.

[Apollo11]

TheJuryeffsOut wrote:

Just so I’m not mistaken, is this Herbert character the guy who became best mates with Hilton, took over the Facebook group, tried to get peoples addresses, made veiled threats and is on crown court bail for some sort of football related criminal charge ?

I’ve never seen pictures of him with Hilton to back up the idea that they were actually mates. I’ve seen a picture of Sherbert with Simon Elliott, as well as a very matey video of them together outside a pub in Barnard Castle (where Elliott lives).

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[Apollo11]

WonderGoals wrote:

According to Dean a week or two ago he stated 4 or 5 needed to go out to help balance the books. Ferris, Pugh and Bennett have already gone with Chapman probably on his way come January to be replaced by a cheaper loan youngster.

Southport can sign Carver on a perm contract to get him completely off the books. Smith will end up going back to Hearts as well. Going by what Dean was told I think all those just about cover it.

It’ll be a blow to lose Smith.

[Apollo11]

Pele wrote:

Another one postes just now.
Don’t know how to post pictures or I would but elliot tells him

“Me and Michelle want you in the ground 100%”

I have seen this screenshot you’re referring to.

[Apollo11]

ironfromafar wrote:

In hindsight its pretty obvious Hilton was and probably will continue to be a professional conman and frauster , put zero money into the club and robbed what ever he could along the way lie after lie before being exposed, i hope more comes out about this crook and at some point he gets his fingers burnt.

I expect The Athletic will still publish their second article at some point.

[Apollo11]

Pele wrote:

“Me and Michelle want you in the ground 100%”

Glanford Park? Or Scunthorpe’s version of ‘sleeping with the fishes’?

1 user thanked author for this post.

cassidystash

[Apollo11]

Pele wrote:

He posted a screenshot of a conversation with Elliott ,with Elliot telling him he isn’t banned.

There’s some sort of close connection between those two. There have been matey videos and photos posted in the past.

[Apollo11]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

I spoke to Paul Hurrell on the subject of Herbert the other week.
He told me he had been told to keep away from GP for his own safety.
Apparently, there’s members on the Facebook forum not happy with him.

He shouldn’t be ‘told to keep away from GP for his own safety’… He should be banned from GP for good. Launching a mobile phone would be the legitimate reason – but then bragging constantly about it on social media and also stirring up division in the ways that he did was appalling. The guy is a liability to the reputation of the club.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut, Deereyme66

[Apollo11]

Cliff Byrne’s Right Peg wrote:

Deereyme66 wrote:

Apollo11 wrote:

Ferrite wrote:

Remember though: there’s no gland in Glanford!

Not now Sherbert is banned, no.

Is he actually banned?

Hopefully so; Dark times when our only form of communication was through his Facebook rants alongside Wham

He was more than an unwitting conduit, he was stirring the pot good and proper.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Apollo11]

Ferrite wrote:

Remember though: there’s no gland in Glanford!

Not now Sherbert is banned, no.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Apollo11]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Noticed Dean was getting a bit of stick on social media last night, and the club in one post, though I think ‘SUFC, you’ve ruined my f***ing life’ is a bit dramatic. Even I don’t think that and I’m a right misery.

The club being run into the ground by a conman could be considered something that might ruin your life. Losing a Tuesday night match away in November could not.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Deereyme66, Ferrite, TheJuryeffsOut

[Apollo11]

Iron-awe wrote:

It’s not even a major problem anyway…

The actual biggest problem this country has is the subservience of the working class. Gaslit for generations by the establishment – whipping up whatever hate it takes to keep the scum in their place.

[Author]

Posts