Gary: Welcome back.
Me: It’s nice to be back.
Gary: It’s been a while since our last public meeting, and there are plenty of topics I’m interested in.
Me: Yeah, things have been crazy lately. Since we got promoted again, I’ve had to spend time adapting to the new reality. As far as I know, you’ve found yourself in a new reality too.
Gary: I assume you’re talking about Salford. Yes, David and I made the decision to sell the club. It wasn’t working, and the fans were quite unhappy, so we decided it was time to let it go. So far, Dover doesn’t seem to have that problem. How do you do it?
Me: I’ve always believed in process and progress. I spend a lot of time analyzing different aspects of the game and constantly improving the team performance. I’m not a big fan of so-called “meta exploits” in a tactical approach. I want to be part of the game experience, and the way I use tactical instructions during matches reflects that.
Gary: Meta exploits?
Me: I’m talking about those repeated tactical instructions managers use just to get results. They’re usually based on a much higher tempo, a very low defensive line, and direct passing in conjunction with an attacking mentality.
Gary: What system are you using?
Me: The same since season one. I rarely adjust my out-of-possession instructions, which are almost always set to a lower defensive line and counter-press. Depending on the opposition I’m facing, a 4-3-3 is mid-block, and RAF is high press.
When it comes to in-possession instructions, they are flexible and adjusted depending on match statistics and indicators.
Gary: I won’t argue with that, as you have a much better managerial record than I do and the results proof it is working.
Gary: How do you deal with unhappiness in the squad?
Me: Finn is young and inexperienced and easily influenced by his agent. That person is just trying to make money from commission, not thinking about the player’s best interests. I told him he should leave him, but so far he hasn’t.
Other players are mostly complaining about contracts. I wanted to offer them improved deals, but on the other hand they are asking for unrealistic money. Lorenzo Ignacchiti, for example, is asking for £25k per week, which is four times his current deal. I consider that unrealistic.
Gary: Yes, we had a similar problem. There are things I want to talk about, but they are not strictly related to football. Can we talk about influencers?
Me: Yes, I have no problem speaking out on any subject.
Gary: Your comments about YouTubers and Patreon have made big news in the media. What do you think about it?
Me: I didn’t notice. I don’t watch TV and don’t use social media. False information is present in every aspect of our lives, so it’s not just them I was referring to.
Gary: Are you planning to sign up for some PR lessons?
Me: No, I enjoy my freedom of speech, but I have joined a “sarcasmoholics” group to reduce the impact of sarcasm on my daily life.
Gary: That sarcasm could get you in trouble. Are you not afraid you’re going to lose your followers?
Me: Followers? I’m assuming you’re referring to social media followers. I only have a YouTube channel to show some highlights from Dover matches, but this is free content, so the number of followers doesn’t bother me.
Gary: You have also said things about Patreon. Can you elaborate?
Me: Yes. I don’t think content creators should do their work for free—I’m far from that. I just disagree with some of their methods. Using titles like “perfection” or “the best meta” is childish to me. They should be attracting followers by creating valuable content and not by presenting flashy titles, unrealistic achievements, and bold statements.
It has become something of a pattern that influencers complain about how they are treated by viewers. I do agree that some comments cross the line and should be addressed, but not every comment is abuse.
There is a growing trend where all forms of constructive criticism are labelled as abuse. In my opinion, that’s not how it should work.
You know it yourself—I read a newspaper article that was quite condescending towards you and David after you lost to Dover in our last meeting. Did you get offended?
Gary: No. It was deserved criticism, which made us rethink our approach, and as I mentioned before, we decided to sell the club.
Me: You see, this is the problem—I think it’s all about perspective. My perspective is that we should not only consider the mental wellbeing of those influencers, but also the people who consume their content.
I haven’t seen anyone talking about those consumers who are encouraged to buy or use some of the products that content creators are promoting. What if it doesn’t work for them? What if they end up feeling disappointed or even depressed?
There are always two sides to every coin, and influencers often present themselves only as victims. That narrative needs to change, because it isn’t right.
As far as my sarcasm goes, I will always stand up for people who are being taken advantage of.
Gary: Yes, I certainly understand your logic now. I think we can end on that. It was a pleasure, as always.
Me: Thanks, I’ve enjoyed it myself.
