Forum Replies Created
-
He said he’d GIVE the ground back, that should be easy to negotiate.
There’s about as much chance of that as there ever was of Hilton building a new stadium on the land in town.
1 user thanked author for this post.
So trying to get money from the club for a ground he took away from the club is a positive! Wow
I didn’t say that, did I?
Getting the ground back is the positive. However it happens.
And it just so happens that to be in with a chance of getting it we have to deal with Peter Swann. The simple fact is that he owns Glanford Park. How he came to own it – and the morality of that ownership – has to be put to one side in the current situation. Bitterness, even if it is absolutely justified, isn’t going to help the club or supporters under current circumstances.
You would hope that the terms of any deal are favourable for us, rather than unfairly weighted towards him – but, whatever, I’m looking at it from a realist perspective. I’m not saying forgive him. I’m saying keep your powder dry and get the deal done.
4 users thanked author for this post.
That consideration is giving Swann far too much credit for which he deserves none. Don’t forget he stole the ground because of his mismanagement (and his mismanagement only) and was quite happy to let us be wound up whilst keeping the stadium firmly in Coolsilks hands.
I understand the anger and the lack of credit due to him… but if you were absolutely correct he wouldn’t be negotiating now, would he?
3 users thanked author for this post.
Fair. I realise that Swann holds the blame there. Though, if Harness and co secure a ground solution it will be something Hilton failed to do, and that’s what I am trying to refer to really. Swann cost us club ownership of the ground, but Hilton’s nature might have costed us with playing there.
You do have to consider the possibility that Swann played awkward with Hilton as he realised he had made a grave mistake, and wanted to keep the ground away from the club until the club sorted itself out…
2 users thanked author for this post.
The haven’t been owners a day yet so give them a chance to sort it out, Hilton wasn’t given it rightly or wrongly, I know Simon and Roj pretty well to talk to and they are both Iron through and through, met Michelle once and I know she is a Iron as well, let us just let them sort it in their own way and stop jumping to conclusions, they will know the priorities, let us just call them the dream team
I don’t think anyone isn’t giving Michelle a chance. I suspect more will give her and those involved a chance because their credentials are far stronger than Hilton’s and I would be incredibly surprised if we hear of the same skeletons in the closet as with Hilton.
As for whether Hilton was given a chance, I would say that he didn’t leave because of this. He got found out, didn’t have the money really and tried to use that as an excuse. However, his excuse of not paying those he owed because of anxieties is so poor it doesn’t work as an excuse. That’s no justification not to pay people; feeling bad doesn’t stop you of obligated payments. If anything, I am thankful this man wasn’t able to embed himself in the club even further. In his short time he managed to run more than one ponzi scheme, divide the fanbase with his emotional manipulation, fail to resolve the debt issue to any degree and put us on the verge of losing our own ground. I dread to think how damaging it would be if he got his hands on the stadium.
I think most know it’s a tough situation, but most trust a local consortium to have our best interests at heart, which will steer them away from the shambolic communication and trust issues with Hilton. There will be more faith, as I cannot imagine Harness and co pursuing an ownership in the unprofessional manner as before. I don’t think we will have the self-pity, attacks on others, excuses and absolute nonsense which typified Hilton’s ownership. There’s finally optimism again.
Hilton seemed to throw his toys out of the pram fairly early in his tenure, when people were (as they had a right to be) suspicious of his motives and started asking questions (which they had a right to do). He realised he wasn’t the smartest person in the room and, imho, he himself must have known early on that it was just a matter of time before his reign went tits up. In carelessness, desperation and anger it got progressively nastier and more dishonest, and he was unable to keep hold of his runaway horse.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I’m optimistic about the Board addressing 1899 /100. It may take some time but hopefully the good will of those who signed up will make a big difference.
I agree with this. I am hopeful that the people who took an 1899 will be sensible enough to not try and hold the new regime to account for any benefits (shares and lifetime season tickets!) associated with someone else’s Ponzi nonsense.
Perhaps they, and the club, can all back away graciously while the scheme and everything associated with it are dissolved, all of them agreeing and fully accepting that it’s not workable.
It is, of course, on the club to pay these people back, and I believe they are also morally obliged to recompense them too in some way. Yet more wiping David Hilton’s arse. Unfair but necessary I’m afraid.
1 user thanked author for this post.
good news the bans have been overturned … surely mr Herbert is not being so lucky, do the club need ‘fans” like him acting up like he is actually part of the club staff hanging about like a bad smell
Regardless of any other behaviour, throwing an object (a phone) onto the pitch merits a ban. It’s against the club’s own rules.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Nice to see those ridiculous bans under Hilton lifted, will the phone chucker be the first person banned under the new ownership?, well he did break the club’s rules on throwing objects onto the pitch and remember it applies home and away.
This banning has to be as much of a priority as the unbanning. However, could be difficult for Smelliott.
If Swann didn’t destroy our club then why do we not own our ground and the land it stands on, and why were we sold to a conman for £3
Well first of all, the club still exists so he didn’t destroy it.
What he did do was severely wound it by splitting it from the ground and land.
1 user thanked author for this post.
And Swann is vital to the club getting GP back so we’d do well to remember that.
Wow and people wonder why this forum gets accused of having PS apologists.
That’s not being an apologist, it’s being a realist. Swann owns Glanford Park and the surrounding land.
5 users thanked author for this post.
Swann didn’t destroy our club, Hilton stepped in and could have saved it. He didn’t and nearly destroyed us.
I believe this is closer to the reality of it than anything else.
I’m no Swann apologist, but it was Hilton who actually had the opportunity to do good and right by the club and didn’t.
He did not ‘save it’ at all. He set it on a crash course.
He bitched and moaned about the previous owner, engaged in dubious social media PR, stoked division and incited others to make threats, sometimes behaving abominably when engaging with supporters himself. Let’s not forget he u-turned often and lied who knows when and how many times about who knows what. Gaslighting in extremis! We also don’t know if he actually did put any money in at all, or – as some suspect – just used the season ticket cash, the 1899 Ponzi, the turnstile income, the sponsorship deals and whatever else was lying around when he took over.
4 users thanked author for this post.
I believe the statement from Michelle covers more of the truth than the majority of the posters on here, Hilton taken no fee and wiped out personal monies invested & Elliott massively assisted. Maybe all was not as black and white!! As many here believe.
I’d expect that arriving at that club statement to have had a high level of interpersonal politics involved. These things are almost always worded to be palatable and in favour of all parties. They’re usually designed to set-up a narrative all have agreed upon, and don’t necessarily reflect the truth.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The gist of this thread has been don’t let anyone who supported Hilton to get involved with the takeover.
Do I hear the sound of tunes being changed!
Not at all. No changed tune. No hypocrisy.
You’re conflating support of the club itself with support of Hilton.
Michelle supported SUFC, in her customary quiet and professional manner behind the scenes, as she has done through the tenures of several Chairmen.
The others mentioned in this thread were public and highly vocal in their support of Hilton – and that makes it an entirely different thing.
3 users thanked author for this post.
It’s good news.
As well as everything else, what this club needs now is a quiet, hardworking and really considered stewardship.
People who have no desire for raising their profile and no need for ego to be stroked. People who come up with the cash and put the money where their mouth is. People who work hard to make it work, not just sit on the throne.
It was quite clever of the club to give Hilton a generous mention in the statement, probably the right political thing to do. Also smart to acknowledge Elliott but good that it seemed to be a bit of a farewell too (that’s how I read it). Time for a fresh start away from all that nonsense of the last several months, and the very public figures who were involved in it.
I also applaud Jimmy. He seems to appreciate how precious (if unstable) a job in professional football is. Far too many in his position regard it as ‘having made it’ so no further effort required. I still think a few shifts at the steelworks (or similar depending on location) would show those lucky enough to be paid, for what many of us did for nothing, how fortunate they are and how they should work to protect what they have.
I’m hoping the club plugs back into the community. I seem to remember things like steelworks visits.
1 user thanked author for this post.
