Forum Replies Created
-
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.
One of the clearest signs of weak leadership is the need to be surrounded by yes-men. The moment someone only welcomes praise and treats criticism as disloyalty, they stop learning, stop growing, and start disappearing into their own ego.
History is full of examples of powerful figures brought undone by flattery, arrogance, and an inability to hear uncomfortable truths. Even in ancient Rome, there was a tradition during a triumph for a voice behind the victorious leader to remind him of his mortality and limits, often rendered as “remember you are mortal.” The point was simple: power, applause, and self-importance have a way of distorting judgment if nobody is willing to bring you back to reality.
Butler would do well to remember that surrounding yourself with sycophants may protect your ego, but it usually comes at the expense of wisdom, credibility, and sound judgment.
6 users thanked author for this post.
Just to build on the original point about the danger of the “we’re safe” messaging.
The last two games; Yeovil away and Sutton at home, actually highlight the issue quite well.
Starting with Yeovil.
Yes, we won 3-0, and you’ll take that every day away from home. But if we’re being honest, the score line flattered us a bit. Yeovil had plenty of the ball, created some decent moments, and on another day they probably score. The difference was simply that we were clinical when our chances came, whereas they weren’t.
That’s great in terms of efficiency, but it didn’t feel like a performance from a team completely on the front foot. It felt more like a team doing enough and relying on quality in key moments.
Then you look at Sutton at home, and the contrast becomes more obvious.
We looked flatter, slower, and far less intense. The urgency just wasn’t there in the same way. Sutton, who are still fighting for points, looked like the side with more desperation at times.
That’s where the messaging point comes in again.
When a team still has something clear to chase; promotion, playoffs, survival, the intensity is naturally higher. Every tackle matters, every second ball matters, every run matters.
But when the narrative around the club becomes “we’re safe now”, it’s very easy for that extra edge to disappear. Not consciously, players aren’t deliberately relaxing, but subconsciously the urgency just drops a notch.
The Yeovil game showed we still have the quality to win games even when not at our best.
The Sutton game showed what can happen when the intensity isn’t quite there.
And that’s why the messaging around the squad matters. In this league the margins are tiny, and if the collective mindset shifts even slightly from “we need to keep pushing” to “job done”, performances can drift.
Hopefully the Sutton result acts as a bit of a reset, because if we play with the same focus we showed earlier in the season, there’s still plenty left to aim for.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I think Conner Smith needs a pre-season with the club and we’ll likely see an improvement in his performances next season. Pat Jones looks ready to go, and he was head and shoulders above the rest last night when he came on. I would definitely be starting with Jones if I was Butler.
The point about third place being achievable is absolutely valid. In theory, that alone should provide sufficient competitive motivation. The table still offers something tangible. But sport, particularly at this level, doesn’t operate purely on league mathematics. It operates on psychological framing.
Yes, third spot is there. But the key question is whether the environment feels like it is being actively chased.
Performance psychology tells us that perceived goal proximity and meaningfulness drive behavioural intensity. It is not enough for an objective to exist; it must be clearly emphasised, repeatedly reinforced, and emotionally owned by the group. When messaging drifts toward safety or comfort, even subtly, the urgency associated with higher targets weakens.
The squad dynamics you mention are also significant. Introducing EFL loanees into a side publicly described as “safe” changes the internal incentives. Are they arriving into a high-performance environment where standards are non-negotiable and positions must be earned? Or are they entering a lower-pressure setting designed primarily for minutes and development? That distinction matters.
At the same time, moving early-season contributors out on loan alters the psychological continuity of the group. Cohesion, role clarity, and shared narrative are central to sustained performance. Disrupt that ecosystem mid-campaign and you increase variability. Research in team dynamics consistently shows that clarity of purpose and role stability underpin collective output.
The Chester example is instructive. When Callum McIntyre was informed his contract would not be renewed, the implicit long-term objective disappeared. Whether consciously or not, that changes the motivational architecture of a dressing room. If the leadership horizon shortens, so does collective investment. Teams often drift when they sense a transitional phase rather than a building phase.
This is why the issue is not simply “raising standards.” It is about maintaining competitive tension over time. In elite sport, standards decay naturally unless deliberately reinforced. The brain economises effort when it perceives threat has reduced or stakes have softened, this is the coasting effect observed in self-regulation research. Without continual reframing, performance plateaus.
Scunthorpe’s recent results, capable of strong attacking output, yet vulnerable to lapses, are consistent with fluctuating competitive intensity rather than structural incapacity.
Andy Butler’s task, therefore, is not just technical or tactical. It is psychological stewardship. He must ensure that third place is framed as an active pursuit, not a mathematical possibility. Loanees are integrated into a performance-driven environment, not a comfort zone. Squad turnover does not dilute identity or expectation. Standards are not only stated but operationalised, measurable, visible, enforced.
High-performing environments do not maintain themselves. They are continuously recalibrated.
The margin between a strong finish and a drifting one is rarely about effort in its crude sense. It is about focus, edge, and narrative control. Butler must ensure the narrative is one of unfinished business, because in competitive sport, once you feel safe, you stop being sharp.
5 users thanked author for this post.
What has happened? I’m pretty sure we used to be pretty decent in the National League but we’ve looked like a lower/mid-table NL team for the last 5 or 6 matches.
2 users thanked author for this post.
I’m not sharpening the axe for Butler just yet, we are nowhere near full-blown pitchfork territory. But let’s not kid ourselves either: if this team manages to stumble its way out of qualifying for the play-offs from here, the noise won’t just be loud, it’ll be deserved. At that point, there are going to be some very uncomfortable questions hanging in the air…and simply pretending everything is fine won’t cut it.
3 users thanked author for this post.
An absolutely heroic, backs-to-the-wall defensive masterclass in the second half. Rochdale launched attack after attack, but the lads dug in and guarded that goal like a fat kid protecting the last biscuit in the tin; elbows out, no mercy, and absolutely no intention of sharing.
In the end, a brilliant, hard-earned point against what looks like the best team in the division.
3 users thanked author for this post.
After last Saturday’s absolute horror show, I’m hoping AB has spent the last two days drilling into the lads the revolutionary concept of defending. Because whatever that was against Boston, it sure wasn’t football defending!
Every time Boston came forward we looked like we’d just met each other in the car park five minutes before kick-off. No shape, no communication, no urgency, just a lot of pointing, backing off, and hoping someone else might fancy doing a bit of defending. I’ve seen more resistance from a queue at Greggs. The back line parted so easily I thought there might’ve been a fire drill. Runners not tracked, space everywhere, and marking apparently optional. If goals conceded were loyalty points, we’d have earned a free toaster by half-time.
So yeah, after that mess, you’d hope for a reaction. Nothing fancy, just the basics: stay switched on, stop backing off like we’re scared of contact, and maybe, just a wild idea, don’t gift wrap chances for the opposition. If we can manage that, we might actually look like a football team again.
Rochdale away will be far from a stroll, and let’s be honest, nobody outside Scunthorpe are expecting much. But football does throw up the odd smash-and-grab, and if we remember how to defend like grown adults instead of decorative training cones, there’s a result there to be nicked.
Trying to be optimistic: Rochdale 1 – 2 Scunthorpe
Scrappy, nerve-shredding, backs to the wall performance, but with actual defending this time.
3 users thanked author for this post.
On paper it is a home win however, Boston always seem to find a way to make it difficult for us. That said, given Tuesday’s result, and the up-and-coming fixtures, I feel this is a *must win* match for us, and expect the team to apply themselves to the task in hand.
Prediction: Scunthorpe 2 Boston 1
Attendance: 4628 (298 away)1 user thanked author for this post.
There are football matches, and then there are life experiences. The weekends match was very much the latter, the kind that makes you stare into the middle distance afterwards, questioning not just tactics, but your own decision-making process that led you here in the first place.
From the off, we looked hesitant, sloppy, and oddly surprised to find ourselves in possession of a football. Passes went astray, touches bounced off players, and any sense of urgency was filed away for later, presumably for the next match.
Horsham didn’t need to be spectacular. They just needed to be organised and awake, which turned out to be more than enough. Every time we threatened something vaguely positive, it fizzled out like a damp firework. Defensively, we had the structural integrity of a deckchair. Not so much opened up as politely invited to fall apart. Up front, we huffed, puffed, and mostly kicked the ball straight at people in different coloured shirts.
The second half promised a reaction. It delivered more of the same, just with added desperation and fewer ideas. By the final whistle, the overriding emotion wasn’t anger, it was acceptance. The kind only long-suffering fans truly understand.
Fair play to Horsham. They knew what they were doing. As for us? Another afternoon reminding ourselves that supporting Scunthorpe United is less a hobby and more a test of emotional resilience.
6 users thanked author for this post.
