Who cares!

Does supporting mean going to games, or supporting financially? Or both? Or neither?

When you live in the same postcode area as the club it's easy to find a stick to beat others with about going to games

Anyone want to tell Spooky she's not an FC supporter?

There's nothing wrong with been a fan or a supporter. I just think, and it's my opinion, that supporters go home and away and follow the club to each game. A fan, as I am, goes to games whenever possible whether it's because of financial restraints, work or family commitments. I was not having a pop at Standee, I was merely offering what I believe is the difference between the two.

Absolute rubbish.

The two terms are used synonymously in sport. There is no difference. They even have the same definitions in dictionaries (when referring to sports).

fan
—noun

an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc.: a baseball fan; a great fan of Charlie Chaplin.

I can only describe a supporter as what I am to my wife and kids. I'm always there for them, always will be and I work to earn money to make sure they get my money each and every week. I never pick and choose when and when not to support them ( it was the best way I could think of describing a supporter)

Doesn't matter which version of events it is, it is extremely poor judgement before and during the match by Radford.

Either it is arrogance that we would be so far in front we didn't really need a solid back up bench

,
OR, has no clue how to manage the in game tactics/see that the game is going to be tight etc i.e. that it isn't going to be a day to hold back two players on the bench..(whichever games those are FFS!!)

Even worse that this would seem to be his only game plan if the former was the case as he certainly didn't react or change things when it was obviously that we wouldn't be steamrollering them aside.
That his confidence in the 15 players to beat Widnes on their own didn't clearly filter down to the 2 players he had on the bench which just shows you how far away Radford is from management/head coach potential, he cannot even identify our strongest 17 for any given game


An imbecile can see flaws through whichever plan was in force that meant holding two subs back.

However rubbish the players were Radford is completely at fault for not giving the forwards a breather by not having two other forwards on the bench that could and should have been used. That something so critical to winning a game of 17 a-side rugby league is devoid from his rugby brain shows to me that Radford isn't the man for the job..

what`s this weeks lottery numbers.

Wouldn't that be sweet pal.

Think it's harsh to criticise him on his Wembley performance. No one really had a good game that day and as I recall he was still recovering from injury and Gentle gambled on playing him when he wasn't actually fit.

I think Gentles hand were tied with no Arundel or Lineham and thats why Crooks played at Wembley