[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

The kind of system you might build around someone like Butterfield, perhaps!?

Yes, indeed.

[Ferrite]

Not a fan of 3-5-2, puts an awful lot of focus on usually one player in midfield to provide all of the creative spark. Robins tried it with Luke Williams or Gary McSheffrey in there with very limited results.

[Ferrite]

CMC wrote:

Now i wonder if Ian Sharp can use his contacts and get a “This is Wrexham” type documentary on the go.

Christ, I hope not.

When the actors get bored of Wrexham, I wonder how deep a hole they’ll be in. At least they’re making some improvements to the ground but will they really be that much better off?

[Ferrite]

Iron414 wrote:

It’s all well and good making 3 offers but if those offers are all below 50% of his contract it would still be insulting?

No, it wouldn’t be. It would just reflect the sort of contracts previous owners had handed out. Happy to clear this up for you.

[Ferrite]

WonderGoals wrote:

Compared to Jimmy Dean he’s a scholar.

Compared to Jimmy Dean, Alan Knill’s Mr Motivator!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Northumbiron

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

We only really have this bit of information out in the public domain because it is what Butterfield’s wife said. It’s her interpretation of the situation rather than absolute fact.

And it isn’t really backed up by the fact that a contract *was* offered.

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

Maybe that’s where there was also a bit of a sting in this for him, too.

There’s no doubting that the Hilton legacy will lead to a two-tier wage structure this summer but equally I’d expect – even hope – the club listens to offers for players on Hilton money, particularly Roberts.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron414

[Ferrite]

Impressed with a 2-year contract.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cliff Byrne's Right Peg

[Ferrite]

MK Iron wrote:

I would put money on no-one that visits this site has ever signed up to a 65% wage cut.

If he had been offered a 35% wage cut and had declined it most folks would have just said thanks for the memories Jacob and wished him well.

The scale of the reduction says more about the money that was being spent under the previous regime I reckon.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Ferrite]

cassidystash wrote:

How many people would continue working for the same company with a 65% pay cut?
(Assuming all information posted is correct)

But that’s pretty much my point. He’s fully entitled to go elsewhere if he thinks he can find a better offer. So let’s not pretend that he or SUFC should base the relationship on anything more than a financial transaction.

The days of Swann & Hilton paying way over the odds for players are gone, we have to be realistic. If Butler thinks his money is better spent elsewhere, that’s his lookout.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Ferrite]

cassidystash wrote:

What price/value do you put on a player that wants to play for you that much? Personally if he only played 45 minutes every week I’d still want to keep him.

Alternatively, if he wants to play for you that much, he’d understand that we can’t afford to pay him Hilton wages?

[Ferrite]

WonderGoals wrote:

Not quite Ferrite. Minimum wage is £11.44 an hour so multiply that by 8 you get £91.52 x 7 = £640. Multiply £640 x 2 £1280, then add on 15% as his terms were reduced 65% and not 50%, meaning he was on roughly £1500. I will say roughly because that’s working on the basis of him actually been offered minimum wage but his wife said a fraction over.

The word “fraction” could be doing quite a bit of work in that post though, of course.

[Ferrite]

A 65% reduction suggests he was on one hell of a big contract.

e.g. 35% of £4,000/week works out at £1,400.

[Ferrite]

TheJuryeffsOut wrote:

The reality is that firstly we shouldn’t have been relegated down here and having come down we should have gone back up again. Any of the players on the list we have offered new contracts to can play at least at National League, and Bennett, Carver Pugh and Wilson released are all capable of that level as well.

And then throw in the likes of Fitzsimmons, Roberts, Boyce and others who dropped a division to play for us last season; they weren’t doing that because they’ve always wanted to win the National League North, did they?

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[Ferrite]

Ironawe wrote:

Not the best start to the close season. Real shame not to get Butterfield – this is the reality fans have to get used to in this pub league

Because we never lost our best players to other clubs when we were in the Championship!

[Ferrite]

No player is irreplaceable, no matter how disappointing it is when someone popular leaves.

I notice no one is losing any sleep over Elliott – one of the most over-hyped players I can remember seeing in an Iron shirt. Talk of him signing for Macclesfield, which tells you everything.

Butterfield could have become a real club legend if he’d stayed but it’s his choice and he has his bills to pay. Again, he may well have left last summer had we not offered him a big contract.

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

I mean, he MIGHT come on here and stir it up… The big point is, where would he get fresh Boardroom information from (working on the assumption it is true / correct)?

It’s a big assumption of course! But I imagine it wouldn’t be that hard to be in cahoots with someone who has their ear to the ground.

Either way, it’s someone looking to drive a wedge where a wedge isn’t wanted or needed.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Richard Ballard

[Ferrite]

We have to remember that a lot of those players joined us last summer having turned down higher-ranked clubs, they didn’t do that for the love of SUFC and a burning desire to play in the Conference North.

1 user thanked author for this post.

toffee

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

People suggesting Hilton is coming on here and stirring the pot should ask themselves why he would waste time bothering and, more importantly, from where he’d even get any new intimate information on Boardroom activity?

Pattern of previous behaviour? Actions similar to an abusive partner wants to undermine future happiness? And we have no confirmation that this “information” is correct either, of course.

But as you say, it could be anyone looking to make themselves feel important.

[Ferrite]

lesgeo wrote:

Could be a fairly hefty salary saved.

Given everyone expected him to sign for Oldham this time last year, I imagine he was given a pretty chunky pay rise to stay on under the last regime.

[Ferrite]

WonderGoals wrote:

Athletic with fantastic work ethic, but his final delivery into the box 9 times out of 10 was terrible and made plenty of errors. I’m sure there are suitable replacements out there.

Agree on the athleticism but his passing was awful and he relied on his pass to make up for a lack of positional sense.

Not a bad player by any means but equally I don’t think he’s irreplaceable.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ex Officio

[Ferrite]

Oh look, I wonder who this is?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Awaywego

[Ferrite]

Never quite got the hype around Ogle.

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

There would be slightly more fitting ways to remember Staffy within it, I think.

Definitely. “The John Staff Collection(s)”.

[Ferrite]

Almost half a lifetime ago for me, such a special day.

At the time it was our first promotion in 15 years. We then had 4 more in the next 15 years; we’re now on a 10-year run without a promotion.

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

Therefore HE lost 8m.

Even then, the term ‘lost’ actually suggests he got nothing for his money. I’d completely disagree. He got plenty. Amongst many other things he got the kudos of being able to say he was a league football club chairman, and the privilege of being able to sit at the head of the Board and direct its future.

I get what you’re saying but effectively he cut his losses by £3m in this way. And I would use the term “losses” because from the club’s point of view there was very little to show for his time in charge, aside from memories & rancour. But you’re right, the “goodwill” of being a chairman had some benefit I’m sure.

IronIronIron wrote:

He could have left the debt, and the ground with the Club. He could then have called in the £11M he was owed & bankrupted the Club. He would have claimed whatever value was raised from any sale of any assets. It could have been more than £8M, but it would probably have been less.

If he’d done that, would he have been any better off? Given it took so long and such a complex formula to sell the ground, would he have made any more than £3m without a football club to sell it to?

[Ferrite]

Condolences to his family.

Suggest a minute’s shout of “draaaaaaaaw tickets” at the first game next season.

1 user thanked author for this post.

CMC

[Ferrite]

Apollo11 wrote:

Additionally, which do people find preferable? Swann’s method of dealing with those people who questioned him and called out, or Hilton’s? In other words: Solicitor’s letter or vile online attacks, doxxing and threats?

I know which caused me more sleepless nights and it wasn’t the latter.

[Ferrite]

cassidystash wrote:

But if Swann valued the ground at £11m when he swapped that for an £11m debt and then he sold it to us for £3m we look to have done OK don’t we? Admitedly the debt was down to him but he looks to have lost out financially.

I would look at it like this: under his stewardship, SUFC lost £11m. By transfering the ground to his ownership and receiving £3m for it, he has reduced his losses to £8m.

Had he not done that, his losses (which I repeat were accrued when he was owner & chairman of the club) would have remained £11m.

[Ferrite]

64 wrote:

He never had the money to buy the ground like he promised ,he left the club with no ground and an impossible conundrum to sort out regarding the 1899 club. What a great guy!

Remember when he shut the gates and put posters on them to try to ward off the bailiffs?

IronIronIron wrote:

He transferred the ground to one of his comapies in return for writing off £11M debt (not getting into the arguement about who caused the debt!!). This also allowed us to carry on operating solvently.

He also sold the ground at a value which I believe, as did others, was below market value (agan, not getting involved in arguing the “real” value). He could have left us with the ground AND £11M debt and just walked away.

Can’t let this slide: the transfer of the ground to Swann’s company was his own move, it did not help the club in any way. The idea it allowed us to carry on operating solvently is not my understanding of the situation at all.

As for selling the ground “below market value”: a wise man once said that something is only worth what someone else will pay for it. So you can tell everyone that the ground is worth £11m but if no one else is going to pay that price, it’s not worth that. Swann received £3m, largely of public money, in return for a stadium which SUFC owned until he transferred it to his own company. I’m astonished there’s not more outrage over that.

1 user thanked author for this post.

MK Iron

[Author]

Posts