Banner for the 96?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

paperhat croydon 02 Apr 14 3.32pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm the one question that still hasn't been asked is why did the police felt the need to open the gates in the first place. The answer is because there was a load of pissed up scousers who got there late and tried t o cause trouble because they couldn't get in. so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves. Your opinion is factually wrong. The previous years the police filtered the crowds 100metres from the turnstiles and checked tickets because it was a known bottleneck. In 1989 they didn't. People who arrived at 2.30 were still waiting to get in at 2.55 and by then they had two thousand others behind them. Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm) Factually wrong? So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in? You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?. What's your point? Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm) I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults. My point was that whilst the OP was a little direct in his 'statement of fact', you completely deny that anyone was drunk as if it wasn't even possible. That simple action still happens to this very day, pissed up supporters turning up at the last minute, trying to 'speed up' the queues to get in. Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm) Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan
Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat

croydon 02 Apr 14 3.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm

Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm

the one question that still hasn't been asked is why did the police felt
the need to open the gates in the first place.
The answer is because there was a load of pissed up scousers who got there late and tried t o cause trouble because they couldn't get in.
so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves.

Your opinion is factually wrong.

The previous years the police filtered the crowds 100metres from the turnstiles and checked tickets because it was a known bottleneck. In 1989 they didn't. People who arrived at 2.30 were still waiting to get in at 2.55 and by then they had two thousand others behind them.

Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm)

Factually wrong?

So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in?

You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?.

What's your point?

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm)

I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults.

My point was that whilst the OP was a little direct in his 'statement of fact', you completely deny that anyone was drunk as if it wasn't even possible. That simple action still happens to this very day, pissed up supporters turning up at the last minute, trying to 'speed up' the queues to get in.

Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm)

Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan

Alert a moderator to this post

Leicestershireeagle South Leicestershire 02 Apr 14 3.35pm
Quote adrian b at 02 Apr 2014 3.10pm Sorry Leicester, but this is not the time to let up on the pressure to put the guilty where they belong. Without a basic alteration in the attitude of those responsible for our safety at football matches, we are all in peril. Be caring by all means but really remember the issues here. I get that, I really do. 100%. I don't want to be misunderstood and run the risk of sounding naive or ignorant. I suppose ultimately, my personal opinion is that IF there were to be a display or banner, it should be about the people. RED AND BLUE ARMY!
Alert a moderator to this post

Leicestershireeagle

South Leicestershire 02 Apr 14 3.35pm

Send a Private Message to Leicestershireeagle

Quote adrian b at 02 Apr 2014 3.10pm

Sorry Leicester, but this is not the time to let up on the pressure to put the guilty where they belong. Without a basic alteration in the attitude of those responsible for our safety at football matches, we are all in peril. Be caring by all means but really remember the issues here.

I get that, I really do. 100%. I don't want to be misunderstood and run the risk of sounding naive or ignorant.

I suppose ultimately, my personal opinion is that IF there were to be a display or banner, it should be about the people.

RED AND BLUE ARMY!

Alert a moderator to this post

adrian b Landrindod, Wales 02 Apr 14 3.43pm
I understand where you're coming from paperhat, and don't mean ever to become personal, but, like Kerms suggests, you may be misunderstanding the position here. Yes, of course there are silly little drunk boys at matches, no doubting that. The question is, and particularly at Hillsbro', what do those who are responsible for containing these problems, to do about it? At Hillsboro' what they did was criminally incorrect and resulted in tragedy. Further to that, they have hidden that evidence, knowing if they were ever found out.... they even sent a 'misreport' to the then Prime Minister. Our remonstrations, if there are to be any, must take that into account.
Alert a moderator to this post

adrian b

Landrindod, Wales 02 Apr 14 3.43pm

I understand where you're coming from paperhat, and don't mean ever to become personal, but, like Kerms suggests, you may be misunderstanding the position here. Yes, of course there are silly little drunk boys at matches, no doubting that. The question is, and particularly at Hillsbro', what do those who are responsible for containing these problems, to do about it? At Hillsboro' what they did was criminally incorrect and resulted in tragedy. Further to that, they have hidden that evidence, knowing if they were ever found out.... they even sent a 'misreport' to the then Prime Minister. Our remonstrations, if there are to be any, must take that into account.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 02 Apr 14 3.50pm
Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 3.32pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm the one question that still hasn't been asked is why did the police felt the need to open the gates in the first place. The answer is because there was a load of pissed up scousers who got there late and tried t o cause trouble because they couldn't get in. so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves. Your opinion is factually wrong. The previous years the police filtered the crowds 100metres from the turnstiles and checked tickets because it was a known bottleneck. In 1989 they didn't. People who arrived at 2.30 were still waiting to get in at 2.55 and by then they had two thousand others behind them. Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm) Factually wrong? So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in? You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?. What's your point? Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm) I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults. My point was that whilst the OP was a little direct in his 'statement of fact', you completely deny that anyone was drunk as if it wasn't even possible. That simple action still happens to this very day, pissed up supporters turning up at the last minute, trying to 'speed up' the queues to get in. Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm) We've had this debate before and people refuse to accept that some Liverpool fans were drunk and some turned up without tickets. Previous evidence has shown that a publican testified that his pub ran out of beer and that there was video evidence showing Liverpool fans climbing over the turnstiles to get in. Yes, the police, stewards etc got it wrong, but some Liverpool fans did not help the situation and probably were the initial spark that caused the disorder by turning up late and creating mayhem trying to get in. It is na�ve to think otherwise. It also goes without saying that the 96 were innocent victims of crowd disorder, mismanagement by the authorities, police and FA. We learnt a lot from Hillsborough and today's matches are a lot safer from the lessons learned.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 02 Apr 14 3.50pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 3.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm

Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm

Your opinion is factually wrong.

Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm)

Factually wrong?

So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in?

You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?.

What's your point?

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm)

I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults.

Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm)

We've had this debate before and people refuse to accept that some Liverpool fans were drunk and some turned up without tickets.

Previous evidence has shown that a publican testified that his pub ran out of beer and that there was video evidence showing Liverpool fans climbing over the turnstiles to get in.

Yes, the police, stewards etc got it wrong, but some Liverpool fans did not help the situation and probably were the initial spark that caused the disorder by turning up late and creating mayhem trying to get in.

It is na�ve to think otherwise.

It also goes without saying that the 96 were innocent victims of crowd disorder, mismanagement by the authorities, police and FA.

We learnt a lot from Hillsborough and today's matches are a lot safer from the lessons learned.

Alert a moderator to this post

adrian b Landrindod, Wales 02 Apr 14 3.59pm
I don't really think there is a refusal to accept the fact there were drunk fans (from L'pool) at Hillbro'. The point is as stated, the situation was totally mishandled and in a criminal manner that the police have tried to cover up. Any safety at football matches must be placed not at the door of legislation nor the actions of stewards or police, but with those who have kept up the pressure on the authorities to realise the liability of those who have tried to wriggle out of it by over stating the state of the drunks there.
Alert a moderator to this post

adrian b

Landrindod, Wales 02 Apr 14 3.59pm

I don't really think there is a refusal to accept the fact there were drunk fans (from L'pool) at Hillbro'. The point is as stated, the situation was totally mishandled and in a criminal manner that the police have tried to cover up. Any safety at football matches must be placed not at the door of legislation nor the actions of stewards or police, but with those who have kept up the pressure on the authorities to realise the liability of those who have tried to wriggle out of it by over stating the state of the drunks there.

Alert a moderator to this post

Seth On a pale blue dot 02 Apr 14 4.05pm
Thankfully, this new inquest will find out exactly what happened and who was responsible for the disaster. Then all this "blame the victims" bullsh*t can be put to bed once and for all and people will have to accept that it wasn't the fans' fault as to what happened that day. For the sake of the thread topic, I see no reason for a banner but will obviously respect any silence or other memorial the club or authorities decree as suitable. "You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16
Alert a moderator to this post

Seth

On a pale blue dot 02 Apr 14 4.05pm

Thankfully, this new inquest will find out exactly what happened and who was responsible for the disaster. Then all this "blame the victims" bullsh*t can be put to bed once and for all and people will have to accept that it wasn't the fans' fault as to what happened that day.

For the sake of the thread topic, I see no reason for a banner but will obviously respect any silence or other memorial the club or authorities decree as suitable.

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat croydon 02 Apr 14 4.06pm
Quote adrian b at 02 Apr 2014 3.59pm I don't really think there is a refusal to accept the fact there were drunk fans (from L'pool) at Hillbro'. The point is as stated, the situation was totally mishandled and in a criminal manner that the police have tried to cover up. Any safety at football matches must be placed not at the door of legislation nor the actions of stewards or police, but with those who have kept up the pressure on the authorities to realise the liability of those who have tried to wriggle out of it by over stating the state of the drunks there. Kermit seems to think that is 'factually wrong' - THAT was my point. Hoof put it in a much more concise and direct manner. It wasn't just te fans at fault, neither was it just the authorities. Getting back to point, if it were to commemorate the loss of the fans and we were playing Liverpool that day then fine, maybe a banner would be the done thing. We're starting 7 minutes late, having a minutes silence and playing a team from birmingham, let alone the fact that people seem to think its more prudent to start a backlash against the Police lest anyone forget what happened that day. Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan
Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat

croydon 02 Apr 14 4.06pm

Quote adrian b at 02 Apr 2014 3.59pm

I don't really think there is a refusal to accept the fact there were drunk fans (from L'pool) at Hillbro'. The point is as stated, the situation was totally mishandled and in a criminal manner that the police have tried to cover up. Any safety at football matches must be placed not at the door of legislation nor the actions of stewards or police, but with those who have kept up the pressure on the authorities to realise the liability of those who have tried to wriggle out of it by over stating the state of the drunks there.

Kermit seems to think that is 'factually wrong' - THAT was my point.

Hoof put it in a much more concise and direct manner. It wasn't just te fans at fault, neither was it just the authorities.

Getting back to point, if it were to commemorate the loss of the fans and we were playing Liverpool that day then fine, maybe a banner would be the done thing.

We're starting 7 minutes late, having a minutes silence and playing a team from birmingham, let alone the fact that people seem to think its more prudent to start a backlash against the Police lest anyone forget what happened that day.

Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Apr 14 4.27pm
Quote Plane at 02 Apr 2014 1.56pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 10.41am Quote oohahh at 02 Apr 2014 10.31am There were many 'pissed up scousers' as someone called them, pushing from the back and the gates were opened. But it was the innocent people at the front, who had already got in who were crushed. Steel Barriers to stop people getting on the pitch didn't help the situation. Who was responsible for the installation of these at all grounds?[/quote] Chelsea, Leeds and Millwall fans in the main. Then a plethora of other clubs with troublesome fans. Ha ha, you won't even admit that Liverpool fans were 'a bit naughty' in the old days, you've been brainwashed. Edited by Plane (02 Apr 2014 1.57pm) Your memory is letting you down. The really big mobs who wrecked stadiums and liked a pitch invasion or two - the ones ultimately who gave the authorities no choice but to put up barriers - weren't the scousers. Someone will now mention Heysel but a lot of the fences had already been erected before then. Liverpool's nasty fans were more fond of Uncle Stanley and nicking stuff. You want to believe the Liverpool fans are just as much to blame I am guessing even though the evidence says not? That smacks of social prejudice if so Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 4.40pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Apr 14 4.27pm

Quote Plane at 02 Apr 2014 1.56pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 10.41am

Quote oohahh at 02 Apr 2014 10.31am

There were many 'pissed up scousers' as someone called them, pushing from the back and the gates were opened. But it was the innocent people at the front, who had already got in who were crushed.
Steel Barriers to stop people getting on the pitch didn't help the situation. Who was responsible for the installation of these at all grounds?[/quote]

Chelsea, Leeds and Millwall fans in the main. Then a plethora of other clubs with troublesome fans.

Ha ha, you won't even admit that Liverpool fans were 'a bit naughty' in the old days, you've been brainwashed.

Edited by Plane (02 Apr 2014 1.57pm)

Your memory is letting you down. The really big mobs who wrecked stadiums and liked a pitch invasion or two - the ones ultimately who gave the authorities no choice but to put up barriers - weren't the scousers. Someone will now mention Heysel but a lot of the fences had already been erected before then.

Liverpool's nasty fans were more fond of Uncle Stanley and nicking stuff.

You want to believe the Liverpool fans are just as much to blame I am guessing even though the evidence says not? That smacks of social prejudice if so

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 4.40pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Apr 14 4.32pm
Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 3.32pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm the one question that still hasn't been asked is why did the police felt the need to open the gates in the first place. The answer is because there was a load of pissed up scousers who got there late and tried t o cause trouble because they couldn't get in. so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves. Your opinion is factually wrong. The previous years the police filtered the crowds 100metres from the turnstiles and checked tickets because it was a known bottleneck. In 1989 they didn't. People who arrived at 2.30 were still waiting to get in at 2.55 and by then they had two thousand others behind them. Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm) Factually wrong? So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in? You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?. What's your point? Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm) I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults. My point was that whilst the OP was a little direct in his 'statement of fact', you completely deny that anyone was drunk as if it wasn't even possible. That simple action still happens to this very day, pissed up supporters turning up at the last minute, trying to 'speed up' the queues to get in. Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm) I haven't though, have I? Where? 3pm kick off on a Saturday? Of course alcohol on peoples breath was present like there would have been at every other ground that day. The 'drink' is incidental. I wasn't intending to insult btw. Just asking a very direct question because your initial post made me wonder? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Apr 14 4.32pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 3.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm

Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm

Your opinion is factually wrong.

Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm)

Factually wrong?

So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in?

You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?.

What's your point?

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm)

I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults.

My point was that whilst the OP was a little direct in his 'statement of fact', you completely deny that anyone was drunk as if it wasn't even possible. That simple action still happens to this very day, pissed up supporters turning up at the last minute, trying to 'speed up' the queues to get in.

Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm)

I haven't though, have I? Where?

3pm kick off on a Saturday? Of course alcohol on peoples breath was present like there would have been at every other ground that day.

The 'drink' is incidental.

I wasn't intending to insult btw. Just asking a very direct question because your initial post made me wonder?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 02 Apr 14 4.44pm
Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 4.06pm Quote adrian b at 02 Apr 2014 3.59pm I don't really think there is a refusal to accept the fact there were drunk fans (from L'pool) at Hillbro'. The point is as stated, the situation was totally mishandled and in a criminal manner that the police have tried to cover up. Any safety at football matches must be placed not at the door of legislation nor the actions of stewards or police, but with those who have kept up the pressure on the authorities to realise the liability of those who have tried to wriggle out of it by over stating the state of the drunks there. Kermit seems to think that is 'factually wrong' - THAT was my point. Hoof put it in a much more concise and direct manner. It wasn't just te fans at fault, neither was it just the authorities. Getting back to point, if it were to commemorate the loss of the fans and we were playing Liverpool that day then fine, maybe a banner would be the done thing. We're starting 7 minutes late, having a minutes silence and playing a team from birmingham, let alone the fact that people seem to think its more prudent to start a backlash against the Police lest anyone forget what happened that day. MR Mojo said this.... "so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves." That is what I said was factually wrong - "Your opinion is factually wrong" I replied Haven't mentioned drink, have I? You did. Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 4.46pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 02 Apr 14 4.44pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 4.06pm

Quote adrian b at 02 Apr 2014 3.59pm

Kermit seems to think that is 'factually wrong' - THAT was my point.

Hoof put it in a much more concise and direct manner. It wasn't just te fans at fault, neither was it just the authorities.

Getting back to point, if it were to commemorate the loss of the fans and we were playing Liverpool that day then fine, maybe a banner would be the done thing.

MR Mojo said this.... "so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves."

That is what I said was factually wrong - "Your opinion is factually wrong" I replied

Haven't mentioned drink, have I? You did.

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 4.46pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat croydon 02 Apr 14 5.35pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 4.32pm Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 3.32pm Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm the one question that still hasn't been asked is why did the police felt the need to open the gates in the first place. The answer is because there was a load of pissed up scousers who got there late and tried t o cause trouble because they couldn't get in. so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves. Your opinion is factually wrong. The previous years the police filtered the crowds 100metres from the turnstiles and checked tickets because it was a known bottleneck. In 1989 they didn't. People who arrived at 2.30 were still waiting to get in at 2.55 and by then they had two thousand others behind them. Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm) Factually wrong? So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in? You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?. What's your point? Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm) I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults. My point was that whilst the OP was a little direct in his 'statement of fact', you completely deny that anyone was drunk as if it wasn't even possible. That simple action still happens to this very day, pissed up supporters turning up at the last minute, trying to 'speed up' the queues to get in. Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm) I haven't though, have I? Where? 3pm kick off on a Saturday? Of course alcohol on peoples breath was present like there would have been at every other ground that day. The 'drink' is incidental. I wasn't intending to insult btw. Just asking a very direct question because your initial post made me wonder? Ok, as your memory seems to be going, i've highlighted/underlined the bits you need to see. The OP stated that in his opinion, p1ssed up scousers caused the problem, you then go on to say that his opinion is factually wrong, therefore factually, the p1ssed up fans were nothing to do with the cause. So, whilst you didnt specifically didnt mention alcohol, you quite clearly confirm that in your opinion it wasnt an issue. And yes you were clearly intending to insult, at least have the balls to admit that. Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan
Alert a moderator to this post

paperhat

croydon 02 Apr 14 5.35pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 4.32pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 3.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Apr 2014 12.46pm

Quote paperhat at 02 Apr 2014 11.24am

Quote Kermit8 at 01 Apr 2014 9.35pm

Quote mrmojorising at 01 Apr 2014 9.25pm

the one question that still hasn't been asked is why did the police felt
the need to open the gates in the first place.
The answer is because there was a load of pissed up scousers who got there late and tried t o cause trouble because they couldn't get in.
so in my opinion there fans caused it themselves.

Your opinion is factually wrong.

Edited by Kermit8 (01 Apr 2014 9.36pm)

Factually wrong?

So there were NO drunk Liverpool fans pushing from the back and recently opened gates, trying to get in?

You can't be that thick that you do not know what a bottleneck is and its unavoidable results if not managed properly, can you?.

What's your point?

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Apr 2014 12.49pm)

I'm well aware of what a bottleneck is and results of unmanaged actions, I'm also capable of posting without resorting to personal insults.

Edited by paperhat (02 Apr 2014 3.33pm)

I haven't though, have I? Where?

3pm kick off on a Saturday? Of course alcohol on peoples breath was present like there would have been at every other ground that day.

The 'drink' is incidental.

I wasn't intending to insult btw. Just asking a very direct question because your initial post made me wonder?

Ok, as your memory seems to be going, i've highlighted/underlined the bits you need to see.

The OP stated that in his opinion, p1ssed up scousers caused the problem, you then go on to say that his opinion is factually wrong, therefore factually, the p1ssed up fans were nothing to do with the cause.

So, whilst you didnt specifically didnt mention alcohol, you quite clearly confirm that in your opinion it wasnt an issue.

And yes you were clearly intending to insult, at least have the balls to admit that.

Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan

Alert a moderator to this post

EastEndPalace WithHardNutsCosImAHardBastard 02 Apr 14 5.59pm
I celebrate the minutes silence, Nothing more.
Alert a moderator to this post

EastEndPalace

WithHardNutsCosImAHardBastard 02 Apr 14 5.59pm

I celebrate the minutes silence, Nothing more.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Banner for the 96?

Site Map

Sponsors