by Gordon Cumming's right ho » 07 Jan 2007 09:59
07 Jan 2007 09:59It is the same bloke, believe it or not!!phil in cornwall wrote:Is the Mark Lawrenson mentioned in the article related in any way to Lawro who predicted on the BBC website that Reading v West Ham would be a 1 - 1 draw?
Sheff U would stay up becasue Brammell Lane would be a fortress and their home form would see them OK.Pool and Darts wrote:It is the same bloke, believe it or not!!phil in cornwall wrote:Is the Mark Lawrenson mentioned in the article related in any way to Lawro who predicted on the BBC website that Reading v West Ham would be a 1 - 1 draw?
Also the one that said that we would go down with Sheff Utd, and Watford would stay up because they have the firepower to do so !
..........but did anyone of us think he'd be so far of the mark?strap wrote:Sheff U would stay up becasue Brammell Lane would be a fortress and their home form would see them OK.Pool and Darts wrote:It is the same bloke, believe it or not!!phil in cornwall wrote:Is the Mark Lawrenson mentioned in the article related in any way to Lawro who predicted on the BBC website that Reading v West Ham would be a 1 - 1 draw?
Also the one that said that we would go down with Sheff Utd, and Watford would stay up because they have the firepower to do so !
Watford would stay up becasue they had a fine up and coming manager.
RFC would go straight back down as we had signed nobody and we would struggle to score goals whilst shipping them at the back.
AND this tw@t gets PAID for this "insight"???
Yes!Gordons Cumming wrote:..........but did anyone of us think he'd be so far of the mark?strap wrote:Sheff U would stay up becasue Brammell Lane would be a fortress and their home form would see them OK.Pool and Darts wrote: It is the same bloke, believe it or not!!
Also the one that said that we would go down with Sheff Utd, and Watford would stay up because they have the firepower to do so !
Watford would stay up becasue they had a fine up and coming manager.
RFC would go straight back down as we had signed nobody and we would struggle to score goals whilst shipping them at the back.
AND this tw@t gets PAID for this "insight"???
IH, that is an absolute gem of a post. It's the occasional post like that that brings many a poster back to HNA. It is a brilliantly put, well phrased argument about the level of publicity our small, unfashionable club gets (and yes, it is still small despite the delusions of some of my fellow RFC supporters). And I couldn't agree more with what you say.Ian Herring wrote:As usual a media interest in West Ham despite them being a club that never achieves much. They remind me of a bad tourist attraction. Madame Toussaud's, The Tower of London. A lack-lustre 'institution' with some worn-out cliches to go with it. 'Academy of Football' etc. Even what'shisface Gavin Peacock on Match of the Day was trotting them out in his little documentary on the Hammers' cup game against Brighton (another club with some frightening self-deluding mythology [massive, massive!]) and using the phrase 'technique, perhaps West Ham technique' and 'local lad'. Oh that pearly king and queen Walford back to back 'during the waw-arr' mentality just you don't love it? Pie and mash. Etc.
Still, at least some reference that they were simply dicked by a better side on the day at the Mad Stad, and some allusion to the lesser egomaniacal culture held at Reading. In these days of sensationalist footie-porn and general journalistic laziness, something almost approaching the Premiershite equivalent of 'balance'.
The longer my club has no history and no culture all the better, as we continue the 'tradition' of beating our so called 'betters'. West Ham's media 'profile' seems and always will be a great deal bigger than their achievements. Like quite a few others in the so-called 'best league in the world'.
Thank God for the Royals and Steve Coppell.
Very good post.Ian Herring wrote:As usual a media interest in West Ham despite them being a club that never achieves much. They remind me of a bad tourist attraction. Madame Toussaud's, The Tower of London. A lack-lustre 'institution' with some worn-out cliches to go with it. 'Academy of Football' etc. Even what'shisface Gavin Peacock on Match of the Day was trotting them out in his little documentary on the Hammers' cup game against Brighton (another club with some frightening self-deluding mythology [massive, massive!]) and using the phrase 'technique, perhaps West Ham technique' and 'local lad'. Oh that pearly king and queen Walford back to back 'during the waw-arr' mentality just you don't love it? Pie and mash. Etc.
Still, at least some reference that they were simply dicked by a better side on the day at the Mad Stad, and some allusion to the lesser egomaniacal culture held at Reading. In these days of sensationalist footie-porn and general journalistic laziness, something almost approaching the Premiershite equivalent of 'balance'.
The longer my club has no history and no culture all the better, as we continue the 'tradition' of beating our so called 'betters'. West Ham's media 'profile' seems and always will be a great deal bigger than their achievements. Like quite a few others in the so-called 'best league in the world'.
Thank God for the Royals and Steve Coppell.
It was probably the excellent ST article featured at http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=International Royal wrote:
I was on a aircraft all day Sunday so read every paper going. I can't remember which paper (a broadsheet) but there was an excellent article on Reading. The editorial line was the cost of the team that was put out to face West Ham and how could Reading do it in this day and age. The piece was very complimentary of Reading as a whole.
You write a good post, IH, but I disagree with this bit. Has Reading been recently formed? I'm sure we existed for 135 years.Ian Herring wrote:The longer my club has no history
Oh Spacey, trust you to miss the point.SpaceCruiser wrote:You write a good post, IH, but I disagree with this bit. Has Reading been recently formed? I'm sure we existed for 135 years.Ian Herring wrote:The longer my club has no history
I'm sorry, but that is bollocks.Stranded wrote:Oh Spacey, trust you to miss the point.SpaceCruiser wrote:You write a good post, IH, but I disagree with this bit. Has Reading been recently formed? I'm sure we existed for 135 years.Ian Herring wrote:The longer my club has no history
Yes we have history but we do not have "a history" in terms of how that is interpreted in football.
I'm gonna agree that this post is brilliant because it appears fashionable to do soIan Herring wrote:As usual a media interest in West Ham despite them being a club that never achieves much. They remind me of a bad tourist attraction. Madame Toussaud's, The Tower of London. A lack-lustre 'institution' with some worn-out cliches to go with it. 'Academy of Football' etc. Even what'shisface Gavin Peacock on Match of the Day was trotting them out in his little documentary on the Hammers' cup game against Brighton (another club with some frightening self-deluding mythology [massive, massive!]) and using the phrase 'technique, perhaps West Ham technique' and 'local lad'. Oh that pearly king and queen Walford back to back 'during the waw-arr' mentality just you don't love it? Pie and mash. Etc.
Still, at least some reference that they were simply dicked by a better side on the day at the Mad Stad, and some allusion to the lesser egomaniacal culture held at Reading. In these days of sensationalist footie-porn and general journalistic laziness, something almost approaching the Premiershite equivalent of 'balance'.
The longer my club has no history and no culture all the better, as we continue the 'tradition' of beating our so called 'betters'. West Ham's media 'profile' seems and always will be a great deal bigger than their achievements. Like quite a few others in the so-called 'best league in the world'.
Thank God for the Royals and Steve Coppell.
Please explain why?SpaceCruiser wrote:I'm sorry, but that is bollocks.Stranded wrote:Oh Spacey, trust you to miss the point.SpaceCruiser wrote: You write a good post, IH, but I disagree with this bit. Has Reading been recently formed? I'm sure we existed for 135 years.
Yes we have history but we do not have "a history" in terms of how that is interpreted in football.
What is 135 years, if not history? History is not solely about silverware. History is about what has happened in the past and Reading's past is full of incidents. To say that Reading has no history is to ignore what Reading has been doing for 135 years.Stranded wrote:Please explain why?SpaceCruiser wrote:I'm sorry, but that is bollocks.Stranded wrote: Oh Spacey, trust you to miss the point.
Yes we have history but we do not have "a history" in terms of how that is interpreted in football.
Users browsing this forum: 106 I was there, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Hove Royal, Larry_Parnell and 292 guests