![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
by WoodleyRoyal » 25 Mar 2015 14:57
by RoyalBlue » 25 Mar 2015 18:17
sandman SPARTA as ITK as ever.
by WAZZOCK » 25 Mar 2015 18:48
RoyalBluesandman SPARTA as ITK as ever.
Before you take the p, I think you will find that the twitter account the link refers to is an account that is run on behalf of the women's team and that SPARTA is still correct, the main club account also tweets about the women's teams and players.
Like it or not, the women's team(s) is an integral part of the club, supported (not just financially) by the club and something that Reading Football Club is rightly proud of. Also, nowhere on HNA does it say 'Reading Football Club, men's teams only'.
by Kitsondinho » 25 Mar 2015 19:24
by RoyalBlue » 25 Mar 2015 21:07
WAZZOCKRoyalBluesandman SPARTA as ITK as ever.
Before you take the p, I think you will find that the twitter account the link refers to is an account that is run on behalf of the women's team and that SPARTA is still correct, the main club account also tweets about the women's teams and players.
Like it or not, the women's team(s) is an integral part of the club, supported (not just financially) by the club and something that Reading Football Club is rightly proud of. Also, nowhere on HNA does it say 'Reading Football Club, men's teams only'.
Debatable
by Froomes » 26 Mar 2015 05:06
RoyalBlueWAZZOCK
Debatable
Care to debate why?
by WAZZOCK » 26 Mar 2015 07:29
by Nameless » 26 Mar 2015 08:35
by tidus_mi2 » 26 Mar 2015 09:44
WAZZOCK ^
What he said.
Plus, playing their home games in a different County 45 minutes away, in front of barely 100 supporters. I think we'd manage if they weren't around.
by sandman » 26 Mar 2015 10:23
tidus_mi2WAZZOCK ^
What he said.
Plus, playing their home games in a different County 45 minutes away, in front of barely 100 supporters. I think we'd manage if they weren't around.
Attendance of 347 against Yeovil ladies, a small amount yes, barely 100, no.
by WAZZOCK » 26 Mar 2015 10:29
by RoyalBlue » 27 Mar 2015 18:35
FroomesRoyalBlueWAZZOCK
Debatable
Care to debate why?
Well for a start if the women's team folded the club would continue to operate still, meaning the women's team are not integral to the club at all.
They may well be an important part of the club these days in terms of generating a wider fan base and encouraging greater participation in the female game but that isn't the same as being integral to the club I'm afraid...
definition: of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component:
WAZZOCK First game of the season and it was away.
by Nameless » 27 Mar 2015 18:39
by RoyalBlue » 29 Mar 2015 15:39
Nameless To be honest that definition is a bit of a nonsense.
It defines 'integral' as meaning a part of something. So the ladies aren't an integral part, they are a part.
Currently there are fairly minor part, maybe one day they will become bigger and actually be integral but currently using a very weak definition of integral is the only way to make it so....
by sandman » 29 Mar 2015 16:00
RoyalBlueNameless To be honest that definition is a bit of a nonsense.
It defines 'integral' as meaning a part of something. So the ladies aren't an integral part, they are a part.
Currently there are fairly minor part, maybe one day they will become bigger and actually be integral but currently using a very weak definition of integral is the only way to make it so....
In what way is using a dictionary definition (to support the way that I intended the word to be used/interpreted) 'using a very weak definition of integral'? !![]()
Anyway to return to the original topic of the post: Just 30 minutes into the team's second game (away at Barnet/London Bees) Fran has already scored another 4 goals. That makes 8 goals for her in just two hours play at the start of the new season!!
by SCIAG » 29 Mar 2015 16:40
RoyalBlueNameless To be honest that definition is a bit of a nonsense.
It defines 'integral' as meaning a part of something. So the ladies aren't an integral part, they are a part.
Currently there are fairly minor part, maybe one day they will become bigger and actually be integral but currently using a very weak definition of integral is the only way to make it so....
In what way is using a dictionary definition (to support the way that I intended the word to be used/interpreted) 'using a very weak definition of integral'? !![]()
by Royal Rother » 29 Mar 2015 16:56
by AthleticoSpizz » 29 Mar 2015 17:27
by MouldyRoyal » 29 Mar 2015 17:46
by AthleticoSpizz » 29 Mar 2015 17:48
Users browsing this forum: Dulwich Royal, tidus_mi2 and 279 guests