Thames I'd rather have 2,000 hooligans following us than women and children
That's sheer stupidity. Sod off and support Milwall.
by Royal Ginger » 06 Jan 2013 15:57
Thames I'd rather have 2,000 hooligans following us than women and children
by Big Foot » 06 Jan 2013 15:57
Wouldn't have expected anything else from HNA? and in general the mongdiv fans who follow us.Schards#2 Massive overreaction to the few incidents that took place yesterday. I don't think a single punch was landed and the guy hit by the board was a victim of druken stupidity rather than drunken violence. A pretty low attrition rate for 2,000 away fans, a remarkable percentae of whom had either had a few or were absolutely hammered. I thought chucking the guy out who fell over the boarder was unneccesary as has was doing no harm and trying to get back. Given that OTT stewarding in from of many pissed up fans I was pleasently surprised not to hear any racist chanting.
As has been previously said, 2,000 people, a huge percentage of which have been drinking will lead to incidents in any environment and Reading remain amongst the tamest of away followings with about 1% causing problems. I would also say the suggestion that this will impact on any decision to support safe standing is daft. It wasn't the standing that caused the problems, there would have been similar in a seated end. At home games families would have the choice of seating or standing, a choice they didn't really have yesterday.
Real mountain out of molehill territory.
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 06 Jan 2013 15:59
Schards#2 Massive overreaction to the few incidents that took place yesterday. I don't think a single punch was landed and the guy hit by the board was a victim of druken stupidity rather than drunken violence.
Given that OTT stewarding in from of many pissed up fans I was pleasently surprised not to hear any racist chanting.
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:00
Schards#2 Massive overreaction to the few incidents that took place yesterday. I don't think a single punch was landed and the guy hit by the board was a victim of druken stupidity rather than drunken violence. A pretty low attrition rate for 2,000 away fans, a remarkable percentae of whom had either had a few or were absolutely hammered. I thought chucking the guy out who fell over the boarder was unneccesary as has was doing no harm and trying to get back. Given that OTT stewarding in from of many pissed up fans I was pleasently surprised not to hear any racist chanting.
As has been previously said, 2,000 people, a huge percentage of which have been drinking will lead to incidents in any environment and Reading remain amongst the tamest of away followings with about 1% causing problems. I would also say the suggestion that this will impact on any decision to support safe standing is daft. It wasn't the standing that caused the problems, there would have been similar in a seated end. At home games families would have the choice of seating or standing, a choice they didn't really have yesterday.
Real mountain out of molehill territory.
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:01
Thames I'd rather have 2,000 hooligans following us than women and children
by Big Foot » 06 Jan 2013 16:04
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:06
Big Foot You are a self important sod Winchester_royal; out of interest, when did you start following Reading?
by Big Foot » 06 Jan 2013 16:08
winchester_royalBig Foot You are a self important sod Winchester_royal; out of interest, when did you start following Reading?
No surprise to see you wading in tbh.
1998. You?
by Tails » 06 Jan 2013 16:09
by Alexander Litvinenko » 06 Jan 2013 16:10
by Schards#2 » 06 Jan 2013 16:10
Rev Algenon Stickleback HSchards#2 Massive overreaction to the few incidents that took place yesterday. I don't think a single punch was landed and the guy hit by the board was a victim of druken stupidity rather than drunken violence.
Well I guess that's all right then.
Yeah, only 1% might cause problems. What I find odd is the attitude that criticising that 1% for doing so is somehow not on.
And I do think things might have got rather more heated had we lost.Given that OTT stewarding in from of many pissed up fans I was pleasently surprised not to hear any racist chanting.
Yeah, they should be given a medal for not shouting racist abuse when clearly it was deserved.
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:15
Big Footwinchester_royalBig Foot You are a self important sod Winchester_royal; out of interest, when did you start following Reading?
No surprise to see you wading in tbh.
1998. You?
Why no surprise? Lol @ 'wading in' you really are a sensationalist little so and so aren't you.
96 for me....so are you saying that you've rarely been on a terrace before?
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:17
Alexander Litvinenko Out of a crowd of nearly 2000 following Reading, a small handful turn out to be drunk and go over the top. What a shocker!
As always, though, the most depressing (and predictable) thing is the assumption made that the behaviour of so few somehow represents the behaviour of all.
by Alexander Litvinenko » 06 Jan 2013 16:19
winchester_royalAlexander Litvinenko Out of a crowd of nearly 2000 following Reading, a small handful turn out to be drunk and go over the top. What a shocker!
As always, though, the most depressing (and predictable) thing is the assumption made that the behaviour of so few somehow represents the behaviour of all.
Where has anyone made that assumption?
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:21
Alexander Litvinenkowinchester_royalAlexander Litvinenko Out of a crowd of nearly 2000 following Reading, a small handful turn out to be drunk and go over the top. What a shocker!
As always, though, the most depressing (and predictable) thing is the assumption made that the behaviour of so few somehow represents the behaviour of all.
Where has anyone made that assumption?
Twitter, for starters.
by Big Foot » 06 Jan 2013 16:23
Who mentioned the word sensitive? Re-read my post...clearly literate isn't another adjective I'd use for you alongside 'sensationalist' and 'self-important'...winchester_royalBig Footwinchester_royal No surprise to see you wading in tbh.
1998. You?
Why no surprise? Lol @ 'wading in' you really are a sensationalist little so and so aren't you.
96 for me....so are you saying that you've rarely been on a terrace before?
Sensitive? Nope, you're the one who started with the insults m8.
I've not been on a terrace that many times no, personally I really enjoyed yesterday, all I'm saying is that it's a shame some peoples enjoyment was impacted by a few selfish yobs and that really shouldn't happen anymore.
Not saying that terracing was at fault, obviously the individuals are responsible. Just that such incidents do not help push the case for safe standing with the RFC management.
by winchester_royal » 06 Jan 2013 16:29
Who mentioned the word sensitive? Re-read my post...clearly literate isn't another adjective I'd use for you alongside 'sensationalist' and 'self-important'...
Still wondering why it's no surprise I 'waded in'? If you can please confirm, thanks
by Big Foot » 06 Jan 2013 16:38
winchester_royalWho mentioned the word sensitive? Re-read my post...clearly literate isn't another adjective I'd use for you alongside 'sensationalist' and 'self-important'...
Still wondering why it's no surprise I 'waded in'? If you can please confirm, thanks
Misread sensationalist, my apologies.
It's no surprise because you seem like the type that might agree with Thames' preference.
by Philly Flyer » 06 Jan 2013 16:39
Users browsing this forum: Katy 1971 and 298 guests