Forum Replies Created
-
There can’t be any potential buyers, as UTI99 said that no-one would be interested in Scunthorpe Utd. :-)
2 users thanked author for this post.
They should Pat, although there’s a difference between running on the pitch in celebration and swinging for a steward.
The Rochdale berks were doing more than celebrating a goal, they actively intimidated our players and could have done more if they were inclined, as the stewards didn’t stop them. Rochdale fans reported that the stewards shook their hands.
2 users thanked author for this post.
He could have given us the full circumstances Deerey but he chooses not to, leaving us all to put our own take on it, maybe Peters Promise is more right on his take. Would you have got on board with him Deerey or Ironawe?
Or maybe he doesn’t want dirty linen to be aired in public? :-) Some people have professionalism as a key principle.
3 users thanked author for this post.
If Taft on a bad day can get a score of 45 I eagerly await to see what he can do in non-league. :)
2 users thanked author for this post.
Looking at the statistics that sounds about right.
Though, relatively nearby Hartlepool Utd survived 11 reelections from the fourth tier and 3 more when there were just three tiers, with regional divides. Crewe, benefited by its geographical position, survived 7, as did Walsall from Div 3 North. Halifax, Rochdale and York all survived 6 times from the fourth tier. Barrow survived 5 before dropping out on the 6th.
2 users thanked author for this post.
’ve currently got (and I can’t see us surpassing those totals either).
I hadn’t check goal scoring but it looks like you’re right, we’re on for 31 as it currently stands which is still pitiful.
One record we have beaten is Rochdale’s woeful away record in 1977/78, won 0, drew 2, lost 21, scored 14, conceded 57. Remarkable.
History says that Workington were voted out of the league because of their far-off geographical position, whereas clubs like Rochdale, Hartlepool and even us survived multiple re-elections in the 1970s through a combination of old boys’ networks and other clubs being less popular.
One other thing
We have only been reelected twice in our history and only once in the 70s.
1 user thanked author for this post.
You must have missed out on your booster jab. :-)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Odd game.
Bang goes my theory that Taft is better not being alongside Manny.
To be fair, I am amazed this was ever a theory, especially that Taft was alongside Davis for the Harrogate debacle.
1 user thanked author for this post.
To be fair, there weren’t many better candidates than Hill in October from memory. Adkins was a pipe dream and I don’t want his name sullied by the current mess.
I am not sure if fans should have every detail about the managerial process, but you’re right in that we don’t seem to have approached it by course of interview for quite some time.
2 users thanked author for this post.
That is the point I am getting at. I don’t think Hill has done well, like I say I am not finding excuses for Hill. Mitigating factors aside, he will have to take some blame for the transfers and their inadequacies.
However, what I find frustrating is that when Cox was here people, including yourself, were asking what good would sacking a manager do, no-one else can do any better under the conditions of the board. Now Hill is not given the same benefit of the doubt.
By the time Cox left there was no real defence for him besides this. We were going nowhere under him. It’s easy to say we haven’t done as well with Hill in hindsight, but we didn’t have that at the time. What we did know was that Hill had a proven track record at this level. Cox had nothing, bar letting them have it and a half-fit squad.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Give it a rest with the Cox apologia. I don’t think many thought he was the only problem, nor the primary problem, but he was clueless. He was just as uncertain over the first 11 as Hill.
One thing Hill has over Cox is a proven track record. Which is why many were happy at the time to have him. It hasn’t worked out, Hill has made some confusing choices, but that doesn’t make Cox’s tenure any better.
The situation is complex, Cox helped lumber us with such a poor squad (Simon Elliott alleges Cox personally chose KDT, for example). It’s easy to say Hill hasn’t brought anyone in to replace, but it’s hard to when you’re bottom of the league and in January, where desperation reeked around the club.
This isn’t me trying to apologise for Hill, he has definitely got question marks over his head, but I reiterate that I don’t see how this exonerates Cox’s half-fit squad of no hopers. What seems to be common for all managers for the previous few years is mismanagement, from contract clangers to no organised transfer strategy, from board level.
10 users thanked author for this post.
I know what goes off in the Middle East countries but it doesn’t mean every individual either does it or orders it, same as Abramovich just because he is a friend of Putin it doesn’t mean he agrees with the war or he has ordered anyone to be shot but who knows, a girl who lives near me lived in Dubai for 2 years working for Emirates Airlines as a Air Hostess until Covid cost her her job, she said it is a beautiful place but the people are horrible.
Why is murder the only means of barring someone from ownership?
The fact is that Abramovich is highly linked with a regime committing war crimes and invading a nation. It doesn’t matter if he agrees, he has personally profited from it and we’re targeting those close to the regime to put pressure on them due to the special circumstances. Chelsea and Abramovich were happy to take the money and benefits from such a regime when the times were good; it seems a bit rich for them to complain when the consequences are brought down on them.
4 users thanked author for this post.
The Saudi PIF have been highly linked with funding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. :-)
And why is direct link to murder the only suitable barrier for ownership? I wouldn’t be happy if Scunthorpe Utd was bought buy people linked to an organisation or country heavily linked with atrocities. :-)
4 users thanked author for this post.
“Linked doesn’t mean they have killed anybody,”
I guess that Chelsea’s owners support ok then. :-) I don’t think it’s a good argument to say that it’s ok for owners to directly support mass murder, so long as they don’t do it themselves.
” also has the Newcastle owners personally killed anybody”
Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund, which is directly linked to the regime, own 80% of the club. That regime have most definitely been linked to ordering deaths. :-)
2 users thanked author for this post.
Bring an end to all foreign owners. Take it your happy with the murderous Newcastle owners Mick, now they have a f ING good laugh beheading and crucifying, remind us of what man utd owners have done.
I couldn’t care less if the owner is foreign. I do care if they’re members of a human rights abusing state looking to use football to whitewash this. :-) Chelsea, Man City, Newcastle and PSG are all like this and football has turned a blind eye for greed for too long. :-)
It’s been like this since Wilcox and Cox. Every time defendants say it’s because the squad is not good enough and we need to sure up the defence to be hard to beat. Our idea as to how to score has been missing for years. :-)
3 users thanked author for this post.
Have you seen the future and spotted that Stockport will go up? :-)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Buck’s latest post didn’t last long, the Kremlin were soon onto it.
The NKVD and the Bolsheviks always made a greater example of the ‘traitors’ who turned against them than the never believers. :-)
Though, it would be somewhat ironic if the next legal action against a Scunny fan would be Bucks, after years telling us how right it was for Swann to threaten others. X-)
Though, I must state that I am on Bucks’s side here and he has my sympathy for this.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s not that easy though, is it? He might see it as cowardice to quit, for personal pride. :-)
2 users thanked author for this post.
I am losing faith in Hill, but I do note the change in tone. When Cox was, deservedly, sacked the rhetoric was that sacking a manager would do no good, because the previous times it was done it achieved nothing. Yet now it might work if we get rid of Hill.
I mean, it might do, but I don’t see how it’s any different to when we had Cox and we were told it wouldn’t do any good because no manager could improve things under Swann.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Wharton may take some blame for lack of due diligence, but Swann isn’t a force of nature. He has agency and the buck rests with him. :-)
3 users thanked author for this post.
