[Siderite]

Blairite’s another. :-)

[Siderite]

I am not, but I don’t think evangelicals are into it either. Just look at the aesthetics of Brian Gemmel’s blog! :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

Gurny will say it was Les and will then post a related comment from genericevangelicalblogsite.com in a spiralling conspiracy for purposes unknown. :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

CMC wrote:

Paddy Madden – one goal every 3.2 Games
Paul Hayes – one goal every 3.75 Games

Daniel Sturridge has a better goals per game record at Liverpool than Dennis Bergkamp did at Arsenal, but who would you rather have? ;-)

Hayes was more creative than Madden, and in my mind a superior player.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lesgeo

[Siderite]

If you can’t understand that, then there’s no hope.

[Siderite]

I’m not the one accusing others of wanting the club to fail and trying to attack fans while not giving any opinion of my own. I am beginning to wonder if you even support the club, since you make no comments and only comment to try and wind up others and create divisions among fans.

As you are familiar with playground arguments like “I know you are, so what am I?” I will leave you to your last word, which will be the usual rubbish.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

Another toxic fan.

[Siderite]

I agree. I may disagree with Pat, but don’t think he would take any joy in our failure.

1 user thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

No. That doesn’t paint an accurate picture. In addition, to training, he also proposed moving day to day ops to Ilkeston and closing the academy. For many supporters, including The Iron Trust this raised huge concerns as it effectively would move the club out of the town, apart from matchdays at GP. This set a number of supporters on social media speculating he might want to merger / do a MK Dons. This was wrong.
‘Shouting from the rooftops’? Not true. It would be better if all this was remembered more accurately and fairly.

Not only that, but those who didn’t like the idea of training and operations being run from Ilkeston are being made out to be saying we thought we’d be playing down there. If these fans could refrain from making pathetic mischaracterisations it would be helpful.

If Hilton’s idea to move training to Ilkeston had any merit it wouldn’t need people to pretend that critics were all saying it would be an MK Dons situation.

[Siderite]

Pat O’Cake wrote:

Siderite wrote:

We weren’t going to be Ilkeston Iron, but the fear of that was spread by poor communication by Hilton

It wasn’t poor communication by Hilton, it was a combination of people not listening to what he said, and other spreading pure bullsh1t.

Hilton never once said anything about Scunthorpe playing at Ilkeston, he said Ilkeston have far better training facilities and the team would train their until a suitable place could be found locally, next thing we know everybody is screaming from the roof tops that he wants to move the whole club there and do an MK Dons with Scunthorpe!

Where did I say anything about us playing at Ilkeston? I also have pointed out that such was unfounded. So why make out my critique is like that? I know it’s easier to make those not enamoured with Hilton all sound delusional, but please don’t.

It’s just unreasonable in my opinion. Moving our training facilities there was a poor decision which deserved critique. Even if you agree with it, in a free country such is allowed and those in authority (i.e. Hilton) should be able to withstand it. Such a decision was bound to raise eyebrows, and everyone bar those more trusting in Hilton had red flags about mergers. It’s what fans of other clubs thought. Again, I didn’t think that, but this could have been avoided if this was communicated sufficiently. There has been no communication from the club over matters, as usual, and we’re left with guessing games. This is poor.

As for the communication over 1899, the fact so many questioned shows how well it was communicated. It wasn’t.

1 user thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons

[Siderite]

I mean stuff like those saying we will become Ilkeston Iron and the drug gang stuff. If any of this is true, it’s so far unsupported. I am not going to criticise Hilton for that, but I will do for shoddy plans over training at Ilkeston, shoddy thinking over closing the academy and the 1899 scheme with its poor communication.

[Siderite]

Maybe because people say Hilton’s saved the club in response to any question of a Hilton decision or worry over a plan, particularly on Facebook and Twitter?

I have no problem with wait and see and don’t know if this GP rumour has any basis. So I am not blaming Hilton for anything surrounding this at the moment. However, after Swann I am more cautious and sceptical, and Hilton’s made mistakes so far, and these have caused mistrust among some, along with the bad record on Company’s House. These may have an explanation, but are bound to cause worry among some. Blaming those with worries over legitimate questions (no, not the Hilton is a drugs baron stuff) won’t alleviate concern. There have been attempts by Hilton to stamp his mark on the club, and they have been just as poorly executed and communicated as anything the club has done for the past few years. No twisting of facts needed for justifying a sceptical position for him.

I have said before that I am in Hilton’s group 2 fron his past remarks. I am wanting the club to succeed, which means hoping Hilton’s plans work. This doesn’t mean I won’t refuse to criticise elements I find concerning. I am aware of outlandish claims, but they aren’t the reason for any scepticism. I have a post on here saying why I thought the Ilkeston Iron thing was illogical.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, North Lincolnshire Irons

[Siderite]

If no-one’s said it, why so defensive and why the plethora of “Hilton’s saved the club” comments on twitter when people do so much as question a Hilton decision? I stand by my sarcasm to demonstrate the point. However, I won’t be doing it if we are booted out of GP.

We weren’t going to be Ilkeston Iron, but the fear of that was spread by poor communication by Hilton, and something like that was bound to cause alarm bells when Hilton hasn’t built trust. Of course questions over that were met with accusations of hating Hilton and wanting the club to fail. Same kind of language as those who said criticism of Swann was just jealousy of his wealth.

[Siderite]

A hyperbolic term maybe, but the facts are that we don’t know his plans, and some of his decisions have been poor to date. Yet some seem to bash anyone remotely critical or sceptical of Hilton, and I am not just talking about the wild conspiracists either. They get called Swann lovers, codheads in disguise and more. It’s them who need to have a word with themselves in my opinion, because while it’s welcome Hilton moved for the club, we have to be grounded and sceptical, in my opinion.

Instead such gets greeted with accusations of hating Hilton or wanting the club to fail. Same sort of rhetoric used against Swann critics, of which I was one, post-2020ish.

[Siderite]

MK Iron wrote:

Siderite wrote:

A quick search of his profile shows the first post to be from 2020 with a post or two not complimentary towards Swann.

Stop taking it out on fans because they don’t worship the ground Hilton walks on. Concerns about Hilton can be brushed away as unfounded, no matter what (and some seemingly are), but we can assert other fans are conspiracists based on nothing? That’s no better than Rene’s conspiracies.

8 posts in 3.5 years of Swann 1 of which was mildly critical of him.

35 since Hilton arrived virtually all have been posts that would have had Swann contacting his lawyers had they been about him. I still think my question was valid and fair.

I direct you to my post below and say what does it matter who did what with Swann’s tenure at this point? What matters now is whether Hilton is good enough. We can only learn from mistakes, which was putting blind trust in Swann the charlatan. I don’t think the lesson is to blindly trust the next guy.

The litigious nature of Swann could be one reason for why there wasn’t more leaks from him/her and others.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Having thought more, I can understand why people would wonder why nothing more was done with Swann, but that doesn’t mean we should be blasé about Hilton. We were told that everything, including the ground, was taken care of. We don’t know if any failure to ensure Glanford Park is ours would be Swann’s or Hilton’s fault, but if this does happen it goes against what was promised. It wouldn’t be good and it would maybe indicate that Hilton doesn’t have the money needed to run a club like ours, no matter the goodness of his intentions.

[Siderite]

MK Iron wrote:

Siderite wrote:

A quick search of his profile shows the first post to be from 2020 with a post or two not complimentary towards Swann.

Stop taking it out on fans because they don’t worship the ground Hilton walks on. Concerns about Hilton can be brushed away as unfounded, no matter what (and some seemingly are), but we can assert other fans are conspiracists based on nothing? That’s no better than Rene’s conspiracies.

I asked the person a perfectly valid question. Read my post again and there is nothing criticising fans for their opinions of Hilton. Like many people I will make my mind up on what he does for the club. Don’t give a monkeys about the many other agendas doing the rounds on antisocial media.

Your question was undone by its conspiratorial suggestion that iron insider is some Johnny come lately, when he/she clearly isn’t.

[Siderite]

lucentdream wrote:

was talking to one of the alpha American footy types in Queensway last night he said that he had seen Lee Turnbull and a small bald man with a couple of council officials recently while they were training. surely not going to start the season there are we??????

Impossible. Hilton’s saved the club, and no questions are necessary. ;-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ferrite

[Siderite]

A quick search of his profile shows the first post to be from 2020 with a post or two not complimentary towards Swann.

Stop taking it out on fans because they don’t worship the ground Hilton walks on. Concerns about Hilton can be brushed away as unfounded, no matter what (and some seemingly are), but we can assert other fans are conspiracists based on nothing? That’s no better than Rene’s conspiracies.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Interested Bystander, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Ferrites post is just as anti Hilton as many others.’

You’ve clearly either not seen many others then that are far more anti-Hilton, or simply got that wrong. I suspect the latter, though I’m not sure you’ve seen a number of posts before they’ve disappeared, because if you had, you’d see Ferrte’s post is far more balanced.

If you’re not forever expressing gratitude to Hilton for becoming owner, and remaining measured about his actual ownership decisions, it means you’re anti-Hilton and wanting the club to fail according to some. ;-)

[Siderite]

I wonder what Jesus would have to say about online trolling if he was aware of the existence of the internet during his time. :-)

[Siderite]

Have you saved and stored comments on this forum, dating back years, and spent time hunting down where else they have been shared? That’s effort.

What relevance does this have, by the way? Some crank called Brian Gemmell shared a post by your man, Johnnie, on his amateurish blog (it has the standard in your face and unpleasant aesthetic of a lot of these conspiracy sites) and it was shared elsewhere among people who would dislike the EU. This is not uncommon and not the sign of a conspiracy. Where does JI being Les fit in?

[Siderite]

I was being sarcastic.

[Siderite]

The Church of England, the King and the former military chief have all condemned the Rwanda plan, which just goes to show how all our institutions have been taken over by the liberal metropolitan elite. ;-)

If someone doesn’t rant continuously about illegals in dinghies, they can’t be or be aligned with the salt of the Earth common man. Them’s the rules.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Gurnelista

[Siderite]

I wouldn’t call us a police state, which obviously makes me a massive right winger, but it is amusing seeing those who tried to defend the Met by saying this was reasonable action fumble now.

[Siderite]

You have already called her a karen and made out she’s a bigot based on nothing.

Caring about sexism and male aggression is right wing? So women’s rights is right wing? Ok. You sound just like the men’s right’s activists crying about women hurting men’s feelings by calling out male aggression, which is a right wing tactic. Yet I am the one apparently right wing? Hehe.

I am not calling him aggressive because he’s trans. I am calling him aggressive because he’s acting aggressively. All justified because the woman ‘might’ have said something. What she said we don’t know, but it doesn’t excuse him clapping in her face (aggression) and going to shove around the cameraman (more aggression). Being trans isn’t a get out of jail free card to act like this in front of others.

[Siderite]

Your sexism is obvious with your repeat of the sexist slur.

No-one has done research, but we can just assume that woman is a bigot. Right. That response is not becoming no matter what and is why their job was lost. What the footage in that article doesn’t show is the subsequent aggression towards the cameraman. This behaviour is unacceptable no matter the context or situation.

The ‘horrendous bigotry’ these people claim can include misgendering, even by accident. Given such I am not going to cast judgement on the woman. That’s fine for you though. Aggressive male behaviour can be written off, because what about the male’s feelings? And the women who object are silly Karens/TERFs/hags/bitches. The hatred of women from the ‘progressive’ left which support this is obvious.

[Siderite]

It’s important to know what the context is, especially given how flimsy transphobia claims can be (objecting to trans women having an unfair advantage in women’s sport makes you one, apparently), but clapping and acting aggressively like that is not becoming for any employee.

Also, the use of a sexist slur doesn’t endear.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

I get the impression that only being the right ‘kind’ of Christian would be enough for bill, otherwise you’re no better than the heathens. :-) He does seem to have it in for you.

[Author]

Posts