Forum Replies Created
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
Should it need anymore justification? The naysayers and critics who never wanted Butler in the first place are already sticking the boot in at any opportunity. If the Board have every faith in him and Schofield to be at the club beyond this season to provide stability and assurances to the players and supporters, it’s a good move. What’s the alternative? Wait for how long and have the sword hanging over them and go through the same old managerial instability we had under Swann?
2 users thanked author for this post.
I’m informed a lot of old smaller non-league grounds still have these toilets. And a non-league toilet calendar has been suggested to WSC. Check out Cammell Laird’s bog…
1 user thanked author for this post.
Lol, 414 post incoming? Come on, let’s be ‘avin you!!!
1 user thanked author for this post.
No it isn’t strange because I wasn’t looking up mens toilets. It was from a post on the Football Archive Facebook group a few days ago. It’s had 2k likes and over 800 comments – mainly from supporters of various football clubs in the 70s and 80s comparing how bad their stadium toilets were:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/TYtHs7ecizrKA1N4But don’t let that stop your pointless inference.
3 users thanked author for this post.
For ‘Blowing smoke up the owners arse’ read ‘merely appreciating what the current has owner has done to save the club and work towards sustainability instead of frequently picking at minor faults with operational matters and claiming that she can’t be busy’.
So nothing in the test for you about being a convicted fraudster, being barred from being a company Director, never filing a annual return at Companies House with multiple companies dissolved or struck off? Having a traceable income as and business history that withstands scrutiny should be a prerequisite IMO
Money laundering via non-league clubs is rife. When are the authorities going to crack down on it with any sort of meaning? Absolute joke and destroying clubs essential to thriving positive communities.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Well the votes are kinda in !!!!
We were not informed about the name of the investor, but they done checks and they are not ideal but are acceptable.
We were asked to vote to allow the board to issue shares etc and bring investment. In the end a vote was approved for the board to return when the members have being given more information including safe guards !!! The vote was about 30 % completely agaist and 70% wanting more info.
See what happens next !!!
Glad the majority of shareholders made the right call wanting more info before deciding. However, the fact the Board won’t tell you the investors name should be enough to tell you all that something is seriously not right. What on earth does ‘done checks, not ideal but acceptable’ mean? What definitions are they using. Do you have any faith in the Board MTFC? Do they know what they are doing and is it the best for the club’s stability and it’s future? Not getting good vibes from them based on actions so far.
Also, when are they returning to you and where does this leave your EGM that was scheduled for tomorrow?
Fishing or not, is anyone surprised?
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s only 2 Oct but you’ve won the prize for most idiotic post of the year, hands down. Collect your trophy from Mr A Nally at ITFC. Or the MTFC boardroom… possibly.
8 users thanked author for this post.
Lol, best comparison I could think of. Think we need a midfielder to break up opposition play for 9Omins rather than a twinkle toes who plays for 60-70mins with the odd flash of brilliance. And the players to start passing well again. Can’t blame Butler for that. There’s a reason they’re in this league: very inconsistent.
Tbf to him, it looks like a bit of social media gullibility. At least he’s happy
1 user thanked author for this post.
