Forum Replies Created
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
The real challenge is growing commercial revenue, attracting investment, increasing sponsorship and making the club financially self-sufficient. Fundraising has its place, but long-term success comes from building a club that can stand on its own two feet.
Survival was the first objective. Thriving has to be the next one.
5 users thanked author for this post.
I’m struggling to understand some of the outrage around the club’s fundraising initiatives.
The reality is that Scunthorpe United are still rebuilding after one of the most turbulent and damaging periods in the club’s history. We nearly lost the club altogether. We dropped out of the Football League, ownership issues dragged on for years, revenues collapsed, and a huge amount of trust had to be rebuilt with supporters, sponsors and the wider community. None of that disappears overnight simply because we’ve had a promotion and things are looking more positive on the pitch.
Unlike some clubs at this level, we don’t have a millionaire benefactor writing cheques every month to cover the losses. Football clubs outside the EFL are notoriously difficult to run at a profit, and even clubs attracting crowds like ours still face significant financial pressures. Matchday income alone rarely covers the full cost of running a football club, especially one with our infrastructure, staffing requirements and ambitions. Previous statements from the club have made it clear that football revenues alone don’t necessarily bridge the gap between income and expenditure.
I actually see the fundraising efforts as a positive sign rather than a negative one. At least the club are being proactive. The alternative is either cutting budgets, reducing investment in the playing side, scaling back operations, or relying on a single individual to bankroll everything. We’ve all seen where that can lead when circumstances change.
Nobody is forcing supporters to take part. If a particular initiative isn’t for you, don’t contribute. But there are plenty of fans who want to put a little extra into the club and feel involved in helping it progress. That’s been part of football culture for decades. Supporters buy lottery tickets, attend fundraising events, sponsor players, purchase merchandise and donate to club causes because they want to contribute something beyond the price of a season ticket.
The bigger picture for me is this: where do we want the club to be in three to five years? If we want to establish ourselves in the National League, challenge towards the top end of the division and eventually push for a return to the EFL, that requires investment. Every additional revenue stream helps. Every sponsorship deal helps. Every fundraising initiative helps. No single scheme is going to transform the club’s finances, but collectively they can make a meaningful difference.
Of course, supporters are entitled to ask questions about where money is going and how fundraising fits into the wider strategy. Transparency is important. But I don’t think the answer is to criticise every attempt to generate additional income.
For years we complained about poor ownership, lack of planning and financial instability. Now we have a club actively trying to create revenue streams and improve its position. That seems like something worth supporting rather than attacking.
I’d be far more worried if the club *wasn’t* looking for ways to strengthen its finances.
8 users thanked author for this post.
The technology isn’t really the issue for me. Most people already carry smartphones that can reveal our location, movements and habits. The concern is what happens when the state starts normalising invasive tracking of human beings.
Once you move from electronic tags and ankle monitors to implanted devices, you’ve crossed a significant ethical line. It raises serious questions about bodily autonomy, consent, data ownership and proportionality.
History shows that surveillance powers introduced for “the worst offenders” have a habit of gradually expanding. Today it’s high-risk prisoners, tomorrow it’s parolees, then perhaps other groups deemed “at risk”. That’s the slippery slope many people are concerned about. Academic and legal commentators have highlighted concerns around privacy, surveillance, autonomy, cybersecurity and the potential for what some describe as an Orwellian or dystopian model of social control.
There are also major data security concerns. Any system that stores location, behavioural or biometric information becomes a target. If a prisoner’s implant can be read, tracked, cloned, manipulated or hacked, who is responsible? What happens if the data is wrong? What safeguards exist against misuse by governments, contractors or criminals? Security and privacy risks are repeatedly identified as key concerns in research into human microchip implantation.
Society should be very cautious about creating infrastructure that allows continuous monitoring of individuals. The fact that we can do something technologically doesn’t automatically mean we should.
For me, compulsory implanted tracking devices belong more in the pages of Orwell’s 1984 or an episode of Black Mirror than in a modern liberal democracy.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The football will likely give us some memorable moments, but it’s hard to ignore everything happening off the pitch.
The World Cup is supposed to be a celebration of the world’s game, bringing together fans from every country and background. Instead, we’re seeing concerns about visas, travel restrictions and even officials being denied entry to the host nation. That creates a perception that some supporters are more welcome than others, which is the exact opposite of what a World Cup should represent. Recent controversies involving visa issues and entry refusals have only added to those concerns.
Then there’s FIFA itself. This is an organisation with a long history of corruption allegations and governance scandals, yet it continues to act as if criticism is unreasonable. The World Cup has become less about football and more about politics, corporate interests and extracting as much money as possible from fans through eye-watering ticket prices.
I love the World Cup and I’ll still watch it, but FIFA shouldn’t get a free pass. If you’re hosting a global tournament, fans, players and officials from around the world should feel welcome, and the governing body should be held to a much higher standard than it has been historically.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I think the interesting thing with the goals discussion is that most people are understandably focusing on replacing Roberts, but for me the bigger issue is actually what happens in midfield if Roberts, Westbrooke and Ewing all leave.
Roberts is the obvious headline loss because you’re talking about goals, assists, set pieces and somebody who could win a game out of absolutely nothing. You don’t replace that easily at National League level.
But I’d argue Westbrooke and Ewing leaving together could be just as damaging to the overall team.
Westbrooke gave us control. Ewing gave us physicality and balance. One helped us play, the other helped us compete. Take both out and suddenly you’re not just replacing players, you’re replacing the platform the team was built on.
Looking at the season as a whole, I actually don’t think scoring goals was our biggest problem. We scored 77 in the league which is more than enough to be competing at the right end. The concern is we conceded 62. York and Rochdale were down around the low 40s. That’s a massive gap. We were already too easy to play against at times and too many games became basketball matches.
Roberts could get away with that because he could produce moments that won games. If he’s gone, you can’t just rely on having another shootout every week.
For me the recruitment priorities are:
1. A creative midfielder who can dictate games
2. A genuine goalscoring wide player
3. A defensive midfielder with legs and presence
4. A commanding centre-halfI actually think the central midfield rebuild is more important than replacing Roberts directly. Without Westbrooke and Ewing there’s a danger we become a side that works hard, runs around a lot and competes physically, but struggles to control games.
Butler deserves a lot of credit because a newly promoted side finishing 5th and reaching the play-off semi-final is a very good season. But if we want to move from being a play-off side to an automatic promotion side, we need to become harder to score against and better at controlling matches, not just find another winger and hope he scores 20 goals.
The positive is that I genuinely think we’re closer than some people think. The negative is that replacing Roberts, Westbrooke, and Ewing properly is probably the biggest recruitment challenge Butler has faced since taking over.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I’ve represented both England and Great Britain at endurance events across Europe, and I can tell you I’ve never felt anything but pride wearing the official kit. The pride I felt wasn’t about hating anyone else; it was about representing values I genuinely associate with the best of this country: fairness, decency, courage, tolerance, humour, respect for others, standing up for the vulnerable, playing by the rules, and treating people as individuals rather than as stereotypes.
That to me, is patriotism. Not shouting at minorities. Not turning victims into political props. Not pretending that waving a flag gives you permission to intimidate people. Real British values should mean equal justice, not selective outrage. They should mean protecting victims, punishing offenders, and refusing to let extremists, whether far right or far left, hijack legitimate anger for their own agenda.
1 user thanked author for this post.
If by “two-tier justice” people mean the rich, powerful and well-connected often seem to get softer landings than ordinary people, then yes, I’d agree there’s a serious problem. Access to better lawyers, influence, money and status absolutely affects outcomes far too often.
And if people are talking about grooming gangs, then yes, there were grotesque failures there too. Victims were ignored, authorities looked the other way, and too many people appeared more concerned about reputational damage, community tensions, or being accused of racism than they were about protecting vulnerable girls. That should shame everyone involved.
No one in their right mind would condone that. No one serious should excuse it, minimise it, or pretend it didn’t happen.
But acknowledging those failures doesn’t mean we have to accept every far-right narrative built around them. There is a huge difference between saying “the police, councils, social services and courts failed victims and must be held accountable” and saying “therefore whole communities are suspect and far-right marches are justified.”
That is where these marches become so poisonous. They often take real scandals, real anger and real institutional failure, then twist them into something broader and uglier. The victims become props in a grievance campaign, rather than people who deserved protection, justice and dignity.
A fair justice system should apply the same standards to everyone. Grooming gangs, violent mobs, corrupt officials, racist thugs, political extremists, abusive men, negligent authorities, whoever breaks the law or fails in their duty should face consequences. Left, right, Muslim, Christian, atheist, black, white, it should make no difference.
So yes, let’s talk honestly about grooming gangs. Let’s talk about institutional cowardice, policing failures, safeguarding failures, sentencing, and the uncomfortable facts people avoided for too long. But let’s not pretend marching through the streets under banners of resentment, intimidation and anti-Muslim hostility is the same thing as demanding justice.
Real patriotism isn’t demanding special treatment for your own side. It is wanting the rules applied fairly, even when the facts are uncomfortable and even when the people being punished are people you might normally sympathise with.
So yes, let’s talk about fairness in justice. But let’s not let “two-tier justice” become a slogan that excuses one mob by pointing at the failures around another. Hate does not become acceptable because it is attached to a legitimate grievance.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Bringing it back to the topic of Southampton.
It’s good to see the football authorities taking firm action on this. I feel a little for the supporters of Southampton, because ultimately they are the ones who suffer most when a club is punished, but the club had openly broken the rules and there has to be a consequence for that.
Football can’t keep operating on the basis that rules only apply when it is convenient. Whether it is financial regulations, governance failures, or breaches of league requirements, clubs know what the framework is before they sign up to compete. If a club chooses to push beyond those limits, then it can’t be surprised when the authorities step in.
That said, I do think there needs to be a balance. Punishments should be firm enough to act as a deterrent, but they should also be applied consistently across all clubs. Supporters will rightly question the process if one club is punished quickly and another seems to avoid serious consequences for similar behaviour.
For Southampton fans, it is a frustrating position to be in. They turn up, pay their money, support the team through good times and bad, and then have to deal with the fallout from decisions made above their heads. But sympathy for the supporters doesn’t mean the club itself should escape accountability.
In the long run, strong enforcement is better for the game. Clubs need to know that rules matter, that there are consequences for breaking them, and that success can’t simply be built by ignoring the obligations everyone else is expected to follow.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Drivers who see a “lane closed / merge in 800m” sign and immediately move over, creating a much longer queue, then get angry at other drivers who continue using the open lane properly and merge closer to the closure.
That is literally how a merge point is supposed to work. Use both lanes, merge in turn, keep traffic moving. It is not “queue jumping” just because someone understands the sign.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Middle lane hoggers on the motorway!
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m following up on my original thread because I think the Rochdale game showed exactly why the messaging around a team matters.
After Southend, the club’s wording understandably leaned into achievement. The report talked about Scunthorpe “cementing” a place in the semi-final after a “fantastic team performance”. The Rochdale fixture announcement said we had “progressed” after Southend through an early Cal Roberts goal and “dogged defending”. Then, before Rochdale, the Chair’s message said reaching a play-off semi-final was “no small achievement” and that the players had “earned this right”.
None of that is wrong.
It *was* an achievement, Southend *was* a big win, and the players *had* earned the right to be there.
But the issue is timing.
Before the biggest game of the season, the dominant message cannot drift into “look how well we’ve done to get here”. That might be true, but it can still be psychologically dangerous.
Locke and Latham’s Goal Setting Theory is useful here. Their work argues that goals affect performance by directing attention, increasing effort, improving persistence and shaping the strategies people use. In plain football terms: the way you frame the objective changes the way the group attacks it.
If the frame is “we’ve done well to get here”, the emotional energy starts looking backwards.
If the frame is “the job is not finished”, the energy stays forwards.
That is the difference.
At Rochdale, I thought we looked like a team caught between the two.
I am not saying the players did not care. They clearly did. You could see the effort, the frustration and the disappointment. But caring is not the same as being psychologically primed to go and impose yourself on a knockout semi-final.
That distinction matters.
Jones, Meijen, McCarthy and Sheffield’s Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes makes a similar point. Athletes respond differently depending on how they appraise the situation in front of them. If the game is framed as a challenge to attack, it can sharpen effort, attention and decision-making. If the moment is softened, or framed too much as a reward, the performance state changes.
That is where I think the Southend-to-Rochdale messaging became a problem. The semi-final should not have felt like a reward for a good season, it should have felt like a responsibility.
Before Rochdale, the message needed to be brutally simple:
We have achieved nothing yet.
We have earned an opportunity, not a reward.
We are not going there to admire the journey.
We are going there to win.That is not arrogance. It is competitive clarity.
Bandura’s work on self-efficacy is relevant too. Self-efficacy is not vague positivity. It is task-specific belief: “Can we execute what is required in this moment?” That is the belief a team needs before a semi-final. Not pride, not appreciation, not “whatever happens, we’ve had a good season.” Actual belief that the job is still there to be taken.
That is why “we’ve done well to get here” worries me.
It sounds humble, fair and supportive however, it can quietly lower the emotional temperature.
In knockout football, a few percent matters.
A few percent less aggression.
A few percent less conviction.
A few percent less bravery on the ball.
A few percent less belief when the game turns.That is enough.
This is not about blaming one quote, one interview or one person. It is about the wider performance culture. Earlier in the season, the tone became “we’re safe” and the performances dropped. After Southend, the clubs messaging became “we’ve done well to get here” and we went out at Rochdale.
Different words, same danger. Comfort language before the job is finished. That is the pattern we have to learn from.
Recognise the progress? Absolutely.
Credit the players and staff? Definitely.
Respect the journey back from where this club was? Of course, but progress has to be fuel, not a cushion.The review of Rochdale should not just be tactical. Yes, look at shape, selection, subs, recruitment and squad depth. But also look at the emotional framing.
What did we say before the game?
What did we believe before the game?
Did we frame the semi-final as a reward, or as a responsibility?
Did we go there still chasing, or had we already allowed ourselves to feel proud?For me, that is the lesson.
Next season, the message has to be different.
Not “we’re safe.”
Not “we’ve done well to get here.”
Not “whatever happens, we can be proud.”Those messages have a place, afterwards.
While there is still a game to win, the message has to be simple:
We are Scunthorpe United.
We are not here to make up the numbers.
We are not here to admire the journey.
We are here to win.That may sound harsh, but that is the difference between teams who nearly do it and teams who actually do it.
Nearly all teams talk about progress before the job is finished. Successful teams talk about standards until the job is finished.
Recognise the progress, respect the journey, appreciate the work ,but while there is still a game left to win, the mentality has to be non-negotiable:
We have achieved nothing yet.
We have to consider the potential impact on failing to get automatic promotion for York or Rochdale. If I recall last season, York finished second to Barnet, and were knocked out in the semi-finals by 5th place Oldham Athletic. Oldham then went on to win the final and return back to the EFL…
Here’s hoping history repeats itself, and the 5th place team win the play-offs.
5 users thanked author for this post.
Rather worryingly, far-right rhetoric is becoming more popular in the UK not because the country suddenly became extreme, but because a lot of people feel ignored, financially squeezed, culturally unsettled, and politically dismissed. When everyday life feels harder and mainstream politics sounds vague or managerial, the angriest voices start to sound like the most honest ones.
Years of stagnant living standards and fraying public services create the mood for it. Recent British Social Attitudes findings showed record levels of people struggling on their current income, while trust in government has fallen dramatically over the long term. That is exactly the kind of atmosphere in which blunt, simplistic answers start to feel emotionally satisfying, even when they are politically poisonous.
Immigration then becomes the lightning rod. Concern about it has clearly risen again, and by October 2024 it had become the top “most important issue” for the first time since 2016. But that does not mean Britain has become uniformly far right. The data also shows the public is more mixed and more nuanced than the loudest slogans suggest. There is a big difference between anxiety about immigration, frustration with the state, and full-blown support for extremist politics, even though the far right works very hard to blur those lines.
Social media helps hard-line rhetoric spread faster than serious argument. Ofcom found that most UK adults now get news through online intermediaries, with major social platforms making up four of the top ten individual news sources, and trending stories remaining a common way people encounter news on social media. In that environment, outrage travels further than nuance.
So the real story is not simply “the far right is rising.” It is that distrust, insecurity, and social fragmentation are creating an opening for it. If mainstream politics cannot offer people competence, fairness, stability and a sense of belonging, someone else will offer them anger, blame and a flag. Sadly, for a growing number of people, that is starting to feel like an answer.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The full story, I stood up and shouted why don’t we shoot and did not swear. This was not and the times before not aimed at Butler but he seems to think it is, and he locks on to you and he mouthed f@~k off and pointed to the exit as he has before.
My response was ‘ just manage the team ‘, pointing toward the Pitch.
That was the end until the steward arrived and told myself and Dad to calm down, to which we said we are calm and can we just watch the match, but the steward would not leave, so my father told them to F’#K OFF, so he was thrown out and I and my 11 year old son followed him escorted by 2 security men all the way to where Costa is.
I also asked can AB not be told about swearing at me, the response was to send an email to the club.
My Dad has since been banned, with no right of appeal till the end of the season, and he also got a letter saying MR. BUTLER has accused my pensioner Dad of bullying him..
I am not banned but am not going back..Sorry to hear it ended up like that, because from your version it sounds like a situation that escalated more than it needed to. Fans will always shout things in frustration during a match, and on the face of it ‘why don’t we shoot?’ does not sound unreasonable in itself.
That said, once stewards became involved, it was always likely to become more serious, and your dad swearing at them will have counted against him whether it felt justified or not. That said, a ban until the end of the season with no appeal does seem harsh if the incident was as you’ve described it.
The disappointing part is that an argument that might have been dealt with by a quick word appears to have turned into something that affected your whole family, including your son. That is the kind of thing no club wants associated with a day at the football.
Hopefully the club is willing to review it properly, because these situations are rarely helped by people digging in. A fair look at the full context would be better for everyone than it becoming even more divisive.
4 users thanked author for this post.
Whatever the full story is, it just feels like another own goal from the club. Nobody’s saying fans should be abusive, because they shouldn’t, but the people running the club have to be able to rise above it instead of getting into back-and-forth arguments and ending up with stewards involved. If a supporter has genuinely gone too far, then explain that properly. But if Butler has also overstepped, that needs to be said too. At the moment it all just feels unnecessarily messy and small-time, and it reflects badly on everyone involved. The club needs to lower the temperature, be clearer about what actually happened, and stop this growing sense of fans against club before it drives even more people away.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Scunthorpe are trying to move towards self-sustainability, and the board should be applauded for that.
The reality is the club is not there yet and is still heavily reliant on board loans to keep operating. That is not unusual in lower-league football, but it does mean the current model is still one of owner support rather than genuine financial independence. The real test is not whether directors are putting money in now, but whether the club can reduce its annual losses to the point where it can cover day-to-day costs from normal football income such as gates, sponsorship, commercial activity and football revenues without needing fresh loans every season.
As for the new director loans, the most realistic path is not immediate repayment but a slow transition: first cut the yearly deficit, then reach break-even, then build modest surpluses over time. Only once that happens can the club sensibly deal with the debt, most likely by leaving loans in place as patient funding, converting some into equity, or eventually writing some off rather than repaying them like a normal business loan. So the question for supporters is simple: is this genuinely a bridge to a sustainable future, or just another period of losses being covered by directors with the debt pushed further down the road?
3 users thanked author for this post.
That’s where a lot of the unease comes from. If the club owes the owners another £1.4m, then supporters have every right to question the model. At this level, owner loans are common enough, but this ownership was supposed to be a break from that kind of setup.
Right now it looks less like a new way of doing things and more like the usual football cycle with a nicer sales pitch.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Broadening the scope of this discussion to reflect on the wider issues of financing football clubs.
When people talk about football finance, the conversation usually jumps straight to the Premier League however, the real financial stress in English football is much easier to see further down the pyramid. In League One, League Two and the National League, where revenue is smaller, owner support is more critical, and one bad season can create genuine solvency problems. The House of Commons Library noted in 2025 that despite rising revenues across English football, clubs overall remained heavily loss-making, with aggregate losses of £1.2bn in 2022/23, over £3bn across three seasons, and around 85% of clubs loss-making, with losses accelerating faster in the lower leagues.
That is the key point: lower-league football does not mainly suffer from a lack of ambition; it suffers from a lack of margin for error. A Premier League club can post a large accounting loss and still survive because of broadcasting income, global commercial revenue and access to capital. A League One, League Two or National League club often does not have that cushion. It is far more dependent on gate receipts, local sponsorship, cup runs, player sales and continuing owner backing.
The published accounts of clubs outside the top flight make that pressure obvious. Wrexham’s official results for the year ended 30 June 2024 showed record turnover of £26.725m, but still a loss of £2.729m; the club itself made clear that this was after substantial strategic investment and with unusually strong commercial growth for a club that had only recently been in the National League. Carlisle United’s published 2024/25 summary showed turnover falling from £8.3m to £6.6m, while football costs rose to £5.4m and player wages increased by £1m. Even with resilient attendances and higher commercial income, the margin is clearly tight. These are not reckless outliers; they are examples of how easy it is for costs to outrun normal football income outside the elite.
What makes the lower leagues especially fragile is that many clubs are not really operating on self-generated cash. They are operating on owner commitment plus hope. Hope of promotion. Hope of a cup run. Hope of a transfer fee. Hope that the owner keeps writing cheques. That model can work for a while, but it is not robust governance. The fan-led review and the government’s response were both clear that too many clubs have historically been run on unsustainable assumptions, leaving them exposed when results turn, investors pull back, or debts need refinancing.
The National League is especially important here because it has become a kind of financial pressure chamber for former EFL clubs. It is full of clubs with Football League infrastructure, Football League supporter expectations and, in some cases, Football League cost habits, but without Football League central distributions. The National League’s own rules require clubs to submit full annual financial statements and disclose loan arrangements, which tells you that financial monitoring in that division is not a side issue; it is central to the competition’s stability.
That gap between expectation and income is, in my view, one of the biggest threats facing football over the next few years.
The first likely issue is continued overspending for promotion. In League One and League Two, the financial reward for moving up remains so significant that clubs will keep stretching wages and transfer budgets beyond what recurring income really supports. In the National League, promotion remains even more valuable because it is the gateway back to EFL distributions, higher visibility and, often, better sponsorship terms. That means clubs will keep taking risks even when the balance sheet says caution.
The second issue is greater dependence on wealthy owners and soft loans. Wrexham are the high-profile example of owner-backed growth done with momentum and commercial upside, but most clubs do not have that level of brand expansion or investor profile. For a typical lower-league or National League club, owner funding is not growth capital; it is often working capital. If that support weakens, the club can run into difficulty very quickly.
Third, I think we will see more pressure around infrastructure and stadium funding. Clubs are rightly trying to improve grounds, training facilities and fan experience because matchday and commercial revenue matter more outside the Premier League. But infrastructure spending needs cash, and clubs lower down the pyramid usually do not have spare cash. So the same clubs being told to modernise are often the clubs least able to fund that modernisation without external backing. Carlisle’s own accounts summary explicitly framed infrastructure improvements as part of long-term growth, but that long-term logic still has to survive the short-term cash reality.
Fourth, regulation is going to get tougher, and some clubs will struggle with that. The Football Governance Act 2025 created the Independent Football Regulator with a purpose of protecting and promoting the sustainability of English football, and the government’s fact sheet says the regime is intended to improve financial resilience across the pyramid by reviewing plans and stepping in where concerns exist. That should be a good thing for supporters, but it will be uncomfortable for clubs that have relied on weak forecasting, opaque funding structures or last-minute rescue money.
Fifth, the gap between the very strongest and weakest clubs in the lower leagues may widen. Some clubs will build stable models around attendances, community support, disciplined wages, better commercial operations and realistic planning. Others will continue to chase short-term sporting success with cost bases that only make sense if everything goes right. In the next downturn, whether that is relegation, lower attendances, reduced owner appetite or a bad run without player sale profits, those football clubs with weaker models will be exposed.
So the real financial warning sign in English football is not just that clubs lose money. It is that, lower down the pyramid, too many clubs are still one shock away from serious distress. The Premier League’s problems are about control, regulation and competitive balance. The lower leagues’ problems are more basic: cash flow, dependency, sustainability and survival. And unless governance improves materially, I think the coming years will bring more emergency funding, more distress sales, more supporter anxiety, and more examples of historic clubs living far too close to the edge.
3 users thanked author for this post.
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.
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.
