Protest success

[North Lincolnshire Irons]

Error should read WHOSE pulling your strings too.

[Ex Officio]

Anonymous wrote:

You make it sound like Swann putting the club up for sale will improve our performances on the pitch!

…and him not doing so will what? Can’t make them worse, can it?

[Anonymous]

Ok and do you all expect him to keep covering losses while you lot hurt dogs abuse at him and his family?

All that will happen is that the budget will get reduced further to reflect the 2k supporters bothering to go to games.

I’ve said before I don’t care who the owner is, but I do care that we have someone capable of funding the club.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Awaywego

[Deereyme66]

He’s pretty much said that’s what he’s doing regarding the budget anyway. Besides, what else left is there to reclaim any more lent funds against? He told us he was putting money in to the club. Turns out it was our money or our assets after all.

[Deereyme66]

‘Capable of funding the club’. Have you listened to anything he’s been saying recently?

[Anonymous]

Do you expect fans to turn up when the chairman has shunned fans for the past few years, given so many false promises and has transferred ownership of the ground to a company which deals with construction and cashew distribution, where most website links don’t work and if you want to learn more about it you get redirected to adverts selling bitcoin and cannabis?

It’s not just on the fans to prove ourselves worthy of our prestigious owner, but for the owner to show he has the club at heart in his decisions. For the past few years he’s failed miserably and I’d take your concerns about where do we go now if you hadn’t spent the past few years apologising and extolling the virtues of the owner who has failed to communicate transparently and alleviate supporter concerns.

[Anonymous]

Swann said on the radio it’ll be left to him to cover the losses because fans aren’t turning up.

People are obsessed with assets that Coolsilk have owned ever since SUFC became a subsidiary. It’s old news brought up because we are doing shite.

[Deereyme66]

Did he end up covering the losses out of his own pocket last time a debt was incurred?

[Deereyme66]

For years we’ve been told he’s putting money in to the club, but the full picture behind that would appear to be very different from what it says on the tin.

[Ferrite]

Anonymous wrote:

Ok and do you all expect him to keep covering losses while you lot hurt dogs abuse at him and his family?

What losses? I thought we were sustainable now?

Out of interest UTI99, what has Mr Swann done in the last 8-9 years to earn your support & admiration? What achievements can you point to?

[Anonymous]

Ok well let’s see what happens for the rest of Swanns tenure and under any new owner. My guess is it won’t be all roses like some of you believe and Alcy/Sanfran won’t get a birthday/Xmas card so that they ‘feel wanted’.

[Deereyme66]

I don’t think anybody thinks it will be all Roses by any means and no ones expecting cards but some healthy connection with fans, the council and the press would be extremely beneficial to the club.

[Deereyme66]

Do these complete breakdowns with these constituent groups, and so it seems, anybody who dare criticise him, not concern you UTI99?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Swann said on the radio it’ll be left to him to cover the losses because fans aren’t turning up.

People are obsessed with assets that Coolsilk have owned ever since SUFC became a subsidiary. It’s old news brought up because we are doing shite.

Well, maybe he should have been more transparent and honest then. He can’t blame the fans for being sceptical when he doesn’t alleviate concerns. Acting like a tyrant who needs love is not a positive.

Coolsilk is brought up because people want to know that the club is secure. Other clubs have faced issues when they don’t own their ground; we want those assurances. How can we have such when the company which owns it looks like a cowboy operation?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[MK Iron]

Find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with UTI99.

One of the Swann families companies have owned the ground and the land for 8 years. Moving it from one company to another makes no difference to the club.

If the owners can gain some financial benefit from moving it from one of their companies to another by the way of tax benefits or cheaper finance then they would be mad not to do so. The club have been totally reliant on the integrity of the Swann family since he walked into Glanford Park accompanied by a fanfare of since unfulfilled promises.

Get angry and or disappointed at the broken promises. Protest about the current state and trajectory of the embarrassing football team and the aapparent lack of intent to do anything about it by all means.

But the ground ownership is the least of the clubs problems right now. Most of the 92 top level clubs have ground owned by and subject to the whims of their current ownership be they Arab nation states, Russian oligarchs or local businessmen .

2 users thanked author for this post.

Awaywego, Deereyme66

[Anonymous]

Cowboy operation with circa £60m in current/fixed assets? Oh to be a penny behind them.

[Anonymous]

I would be more inclined to agree, if Coolsilk didn’t look so dodgy from its website

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Cowboy operation with circa £60m in current/fixed assets? Oh to be a penny behind them.

Yes, that totally alleviates concerns about a company which has a website that doesn’t work. It may be totally ok, but to the viewer it looks awful. If I want to learn more I get directed to ads for bitcoin, cannabis and other things.

That’s not the mark of a professional organisation and if a company has those issues with its website then they should sort them. Imagine being a potential interested party in that industry and seeing that when learning more. I don’t think they’d take kindly to you telling them its fixed assets as a defence. They’d see it as shoddy and unprofessional and go elsewhere.

The point is that it doesn’t create the image of a good company.

[Ferrite]

MK Iron wrote:

But the ground ownership is the least of the clubs problems right now. Most of the 92 top level clubs have ground owned by and subject to the whims of their current ownership be they Arab nation states, Russian oligarchs or local businessmen .

Two things here:

1) It just shows how important reform & proper regulation is for the game in this country.

2) Just because something’s shit elsewhere doesn’t mean we want the same shit here.

[MK Iron]

Not defending the situation for a minute Ferrite or BRI. As Ferrite that part of the clubs problem is no different for most other clubs. We are (nearly) all prisoners to the whims of our clubs owners.

It is a problem for football and its regulators to resolve – don’t hold your breath on that one.

The problem about being 92nd out of 92 and getting worse not better is a problem unique to us.

The ownership seem unconcerned or unprepared to do anything about that problem. In the scheme of things that is what worries me.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ferrite

[Awaywego]

To be fair and I do like to be fair, Swannys company did sponsor the the renaming of glanny park to a tune of over £2 million, money that swanny or coolsilk can’t recover so to say he hasn’t put any of his own money is wrong. Perhaps all those who took advantage of subsidized travel to Charlton and Chelsea and the free travel to Plymouth will hand the subsidys back, as it must have contributed to the d

[Awaywego]

Debt.sorry about that.

[Author]

Posts