by Winchester Royal » 24 Jan 2007 14:52
by EASTENDER MARKY » 24 Jan 2007 14:57
by Wycombe Royal » 24 Jan 2007 14:59
by Seal » 24 Jan 2007 14:59
by Matt de K » 24 Jan 2007 15:06
by Coppelled Streets » 24 Jan 2007 15:29
by Winchester Royal » 24 Jan 2007 15:34
by SpaceCruiser » 24 Jan 2007 16:02
by Alan Partridge » 24 Jan 2007 16:31
Winchester Royal So are you more interested in the success of the club financially than you are interested in the success of the team on the pitch?
While it might look like a stupid question, if you think about it, its not...
by Tony Le Mesmer » 24 Jan 2007 16:46
by Huntley & Palmer » 24 Jan 2007 16:56
by Forbury Lion » 24 Jan 2007 17:13
by Royalupnorth » 24 Jan 2007 17:18
SWLR The team is for now, the club is forever.
by Rhys The Royal » 24 Jan 2007 17:26
Wycombe Royal It has to be both, as without the club there is no team.
by ScottishRoyal » 25 Jan 2007 11:13
by Stranded » 25 Jan 2007 11:26
RoyalupnorthSWLR The team is for now, the club is forever.
Well said!
All those that talk about Elm park and slag off "plastics", must be fans of the "club", because not one of the members of our current "team" played at EP.
by Hoop Blah » 25 Jan 2007 11:27
by shadesrwrf » 25 Jan 2007 11:35
by RG30 » 25 Jan 2007 13:26
Tony Le Mesmer Good question.
I would say the team as we all go primarely to watch a football match.
i dont think you can really call it a football "Club" anymore. This applies to most other teams, not just Reading.
A Club is somthing that exists for the benefit of its members (ie the players, fans, & local people). Thats not something you can say about any premiership or championship "club" really.
Like you say "clubs" have now become financial enterprises, often for the benefit of the owner or shareholders.
A true Football Club would be run like Barcelona, who are owned wholly by the fans. If i supported them, i would say i supported the club.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests