- This topic has 115 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 20 hours ago by
.
-
I just cannot understand why the Club are all over this Dave and Maw who don’t really represent anyone but don’t seem to have any time for the Trust who only have 1200 Members or 25 % of the current fan base.
4 users thanked author for this post.
In my opinion Positivity Dave is getting flack for events that a really not of his doing .
It wasn’t Dave who moved the goal posts on share sales to the trust and decided to marginalise them for doing what we fans expect of them,” giving us be a voice
The narrative has changed in an animal farm way,gradually and subtly.Those who were once trusted allies and without whom the current board may have failed are cast aside.1 user thanked author for this post.
In my opinion Positivity Dave is getting flack for events that a really not of his doing .
It wasn’t Dave who moved the goal posts on share sales to the trust and decided to marginalise them for doing what we fans expect of them,” giving us be a voice
The narrative has changed in an animal farm way,gradually and subtly.Those who were once trusted allies and without whom the current board may have failed are cast aside.Have to agree with this. There’s something a bit suspect about the way the board has shunned the Trust and Iron Bru – or, rather (to be a bit more accurate / slightly less dramatic), the way they have wilfully downgraded them.
Without the Trust and without Iron Bru the club would actually now be gone. These are the two organisations that will question, challenge, stand up etc etc…
As generally harmless or decent as they may be, the rest (Unity, Hour, Army, Positivity, Voice) so far appear to pretty much be “useful idiots” who will toe the line.
1 user thanked author for this post.
One example would be pointing out that we have lost X number of points after 88 minutes is not negative. It’s not expressing an opinion, it’s a fact and, as no solution had been found, why wouldn’t it be discussed on here?
1 user thanked author for this post.
One example would be pointing out that we have lost X number of points after 88 minutes is not negative. It’s not expressing an opinion, it’s a fact and, as no solution had been found, why wouldn’t it be discussed on here?
Interestingly, of course, we’ve gained quite a lot of points from losing positions this season. Perhaps Butler’s thing about positivity (as opposed to Positivity) is more about balanced perspective.
2 users thanked author for this post.
If we’re doing things right then that’s brilliant, no need for change. It’s the things we’re doing wrong that promotes discussion.
1 user thanked author for this post.
‘it’s more factual than Iron Hour and Iron Army, as in how we lose points in injury time.’
Is it actually more factual? I haven’t listened to Iron Hour for a long time but Butler did say they are occasionally critical and he doesn’t mind that. I suspect he might be making an inference between some of Matt Ellis’s more extreme criticisms on X this season and Iron Bru in general. Certainly nothing too extreme on the Iron Bru podcasts he should be getting upset about. Tend to concur with 64 – there’s something a bit Animal Farm regarding the Club (Inc Butler) and their attitude to Bru (in general) and the Trust and the elevated status of others and other groups. Perceived ‘boat rockers’ don’t seem welcome. That’s not healthy. But if so, even more reason for a truly independent supporter entity to exist.
2 users thanked author for this post.
To be a bit clearer, I’m not anti-Matt. I just mentioned it for balance – there are extremes of behaviour in all directions. Butler seems to prefer Positivity Dave-style.
1 user thanked author for this post.
See Dave’s got Glyn Sparks to arrange a exclusive photo with Farrell on Wednesday guess it’s access all areas for him now. Wonder if AB as considered letting Dave give the pre match pep talk now they’re besties.
Invited some kid along with the promise of a Dave mug for him!1 user thanked author for this post.
See Dave’s got Glyn Sparks to arrange a exclusive photo with Farrell on Wednesday guess it’s access all areas for him now. Wonder if AB as considered letting Dave give the pre match pep talk now they’re besties.
Invited some kid along with the promise of a Dave mug for him!Slight disclaimer …. PD and the lad due a mugging both sponsor Farrell and it seems he may be heading back to Barnsley as all their strikers are crocked so hence the rapid photo opp arranged, still having the ear of Mr Sparks as well as AB must give him a boner on.
Maybe he should be retagged “Positively Relentless Dave” as he is gradually gaining traction within the higher areas of the club and wouldnt be surprised to see him given some sort of part time role somewhere IF HE IS STILL LURKING ABOUT AFTER THIS SEASON.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The most revealing thing in all this isn’t “Positivity Dave” at all, it’s the club’s apparent preference for affirmation over accountability. That seems to be the real issue running through the thread: not whether fans should be positive, but whether positivity is now being treated as virtue while scrutiny is treated as betrayal. Multiple posters make the same point in different ways: criticism from committed supporters is still loyalty, especially when it’s grounded in repeat patterns like dropped points late in games or concern about fan representation.
A manager wanting backing is normal. A manager publicly enjoying the idea of critics having to “eat their words” is something else. That doesn’t project strength; it projects memory. Strong leadership absorbs criticism, filters out the daft stuff, and responds through standards and results. Fragile leadership keeps score. The moment a club starts elevating the cheerleaders and downgrading the people willing to ask awkward but necessary questions, it stops building trust and starts building an echo chamber. That concern is all over this thread, especially in the comparisons people make between the treatment of “positive” fan voices and the perceived side lining of more independent ones like the Trust and Iron Bru.
The irony is that the club owes its survival, in part, to people who were prepared to be awkward when it mattered. Clubs do not get saved by vibes alone. They get saved by supporters who care enough to challenge, organise, question, and sometimes make themselves unpopular. If that sort of supporter is now seen as a nuisance while the hand-picked “good fans” get the nod, then the problem is not negativity. The problem is a culture that prefers applause to honesty.
“Positivity” is fine when it means resilience. It becomes pathetic when it means performative loyalty and selective hearing. Fans aren’t there to feed a manager’s ego, audition for access, or clap on cue. They’re there because they love the club, and love without honesty is just PR in a scarf.
11 users thanked author for this post.
Well argued. Some may say the points being raised about this are from ‘the usual suspects’ but it’s clearly a sizeable and warranted concern. We were told to shut up during Hilton’s rein, and look where that would have got us.
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong”, Voltaire.
The irony is that the club owes its survival, in part, to people who were prepared to be awkward when it mattered. Clubs do not get saved by vibes alone. They get saved by supporters who care enough to challenge, organise, question, and sometimes make themselves unpopular. If that sort of supporter is now seen as a nuisance while the hand-picked “good fans” get the nod, then the problem is not negativity. The problem is a culture that prefers applause to honesty.
You could reasonably argue that this trend also makes the current owners as contemptuous as previous incumbents, and therefore not much better.
There’s another angle to this that the club really ought to think about: in the long run, this sort of thing can cost money. Not because people are “negative”, but because people who feel taken for granted eventually stop digging into their pockets.
I’m a season ticket holder. This season I’ve also sponsored four player kits; one full home/away/third package and another three away/third kits. So this isn’t coming from someone who sits on the side lines chucking stones. I support the club with my time, my money, and my loyalty.
But loyalty doesn’t mean nodding along to everything, and it certainly doesn’t mean being expected to applaud while supporters who ask fair questions are painted as a problem. That sort of culture is exactly how clubs alienate the people who contribute most consistently.
To be blunt, I’m already reconsidering whether I’ll do the same again next season. Not out of spite, and not as some grand gesture, but because if the message from the club is that independent, questioning supporters are somehow less valued than the hand-picked “positive” voices, then why would anyone keep stretching themselves financially to back that?
Fans don’t just buy tickets. They sponsor kits, buy shirts, bring family, travel away, spend in the club shop, and put money in year after year because they feel connected to the club. Once that connection starts to feel one-way, the financial impact comes later, quietly, but very real.
That’s the danger here. Not a few awkward posts on a forum. It’s the slow erosion of goodwill.
1 user thanked author for this post.
That’s the danger here. Not a few awkward posts on a forum. It’s the slow erosion of goodwill.
They’re like kids in front of a TV, though – unable to turn their eyes away from cartoon fans (like Positivity Dave). The loudness and brightness is cheerful and simplistic – and makes anything else seem a bit dour and drab, therefore negative.
I don’t think it’s fair to say they are as contemptuous as the previous two incumbents, but they risk losing good will, as argued. They can’t ride on the coat tails of saving the club forever without scrutiny.
SOD makes very good points and I hope someone from the club reads it and takes it in the good faith it is intended. Their thinking is very binary; it is either you support everything we do or you’re a problem. Reality is more complex than there being two possible viewpoints. There are those who are overly negative and seem to like being seen as right in their downbeat opinion over being proven wrong and the club or player they criticise succeeding. However, there are those who see things in a more balanced light and will be critical when needed and with evidence. They too will be seen as the enemy by Butler and the board with their mindset. When Matt Blanchard had his questions asked at an AGM last year, the board noticeably groaned and pulled faces. I thought this was telling, unprofessional and pathetic. All questions were valid and what we needed to have answered. They don’t seem to understand that answering them well will build trust and not answering would not get rid of questions, but will build more concern. This is the problem of this mindset. It makes them more likely to make mistakes through lack of self-reflection, creates more concern among fans and generates a feedback loop where they see more sceptical voices and see more enemies, escalating the problem.
5 users thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.