Question

[samways1]

Why did IronBru reject an interview with David Hilton?

If you have your doubts/concerns or simply just don’t like him, surely there’s benefit in communicating rather than nothing at all? He does own our football club and I’m sure the members of this site would have appreciated the communication.

[Siderite]

I think IB said before that they didn’t want the hassle after some the people lapping that Hilton statement up just gave them dog’s abuse for interviewing Swann.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Iron-awe]

You sometimes have to stick your head above the parapet in the interests of the fans and the club you support when you run these football forums, they should have interviewed Hilton he now owns the club therefore it’s very relevant to the Bru members.

1 user thanked author for this post.

samways1

[64]

Because they are Swann’s bitches?

[samways1]

Completely agree Iron-awe.

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

You sometimes have to stick your head above the parapet in the interests of the fans and the club you support when you run these football forums, they should have interviewed Hilton he now owns the club therefore it’s very relevant to the Bru members.

I think they thought maybe they didn’t need to when the Iron Army Podcast took on the interview.

After Hilton’s petulant behaviour today I think this bridge has been burned.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[64]

Matt reasoning was sound, his only mistake was not saying why in my opinion, as he didn’t want to be seen as anti Hilton,. That worked well

[Iron-awe]

64 wrote:

Because they are Swann’s bitches?

Is that what you believe?

[SST]

Hilton invited us in via a third party. The third party initially billed it as a podcast/interview on the phone. I said I would think about it and spent the next 24 hours convincing the other lads to do it. As mentioned previously, we were all reluctant given the hammer we receive from a select few on social media on a daily basis. In the end, it transpired the third party got the wrong end of the stick and clarified that Hilton only wanted an off-the-record chat. On that basis, I politely declined. I have never had any communication with Hilton directly since he arrived at the club.

4 users thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut, Deereyme66, Siderite, Iron-awe

[Iron-awe]

Thanks for the clarity Matt, I never thought you would turn down an invitation from our clubs new owner for an interview if the conditions were correctly met for both sides, it appears on this occasion they weren’t.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Northumbiron]

samways1 wrote:

He does own our football club and I’m sure the members of this site would have appreciated the communication.

Does he “own” our football club though?

Seems to be a very grey area to say the least.

[Deereyme66]

64 wrote:

Matt reasoning was sound, his only mistake was not saying why in my opinion, as he didn’t want to be seen as anti Hilton,. That worked well

Difficult once a smear campaign gets underway, and not only continues, but is being ramped up. Some people should be utterly ashamed of themselves but I doubt they are.

[Interested Bystander]

Deereyme66 wrote:

64 wrote:

Matt reasoning was sound, his only mistake was not saying why in my opinion, as he didn’t want to be seen as anti Hilton,. That worked well

Difficult once a smear campaign gets underway, and not only continues, but is being ramped up. Some people should be utterly ashamed of themselves but I doubt they are.

I reckon if we launched a range of SUFC snake oil specifically for that Facebook group sales will be sufficient to cover the purchase of GP.

[Deereyme66]

My biggest concern is for those that have financially invested and continue to do so.

[Author]

Posts