handsofclay

Thank gawd Man City aren't in black I would have thought I was watching the first 80 minutes of Rotherham v Bristol City again.

I've been trying to locate the other 3,964 parts to this discussion but so far have only found 2,873.

The keeper is way out of control with studs showing, Bamford needs to sway heavily out of the way to avoid being decapitated. It's that that leads to him going to ground not any intention to con the referee. He immediately tries to get to his feet to play on. Reckless from Begovic deserved red card.

That will mean that since England last hosted the World Cup, Mexico would have held it 3 times and Germany, Spain, Argentina and USA twice each.

He did well, pulled off a couple of great saves.

That is the dichotomy of Richard III he was actually, from the perspective of the poorer classes, a good monarch but he acquired the throne through the murder of his young nephews. You make some very good points that I cannot disagree with and as I have previously stated I think there was a very good chance he would've been bumped off had he not usurped the throne as the young Edward V would have likely sided with his mother, Elizabeth Woodville's family who were gaining power at court and were not great fans of Richard. We are talking medieval times here it was at times dog eat dog. As part of the process of trying to legitimise his actions Richard called into question Edward V's right to the throne stating that his father, Edward IV had offered marriage to someone before he married Elizabeth Woodville. (A bit like when Joe Bryan allegedly promised to join Aston Villa before getting a better offer from Fulham.) This was used as a means to state that the Woodville marriage wasn't legit and Edward V was thus a bastard. (Villa fans thought much the same about Bryan.) Therefore, Richard III was the rightful heir as Edward IV's only surviving brother, the other one having been earlier drowned in a barrel of Malmsey wine. Edward Tudor married Elizabeth Woodville's daughter, the sister of Edward V and his brother Richard to re-establish the connection as it were with the offspring of Edward IV, so really it was only Richard III and his supporters who ever questioned the legitimacy of Edward IV's children and noticeably he never did so while Edward IV was alive, otherwise he might've ended up in a barrel of pinot noir.

He was the only one who stood to gain from their 'disappearance'. They were under his guardianship in the secure Tower of London guarded by his men. As I have previously stated I cannot totally blame him as had the Woodvilles gained the ascendancy (the family of the wife of Edward IV and obviously mother of Edward V) then he could easily have become yesterday's gravy. One of the reasons Henry Tudor was able to defeat Richard III at Bosworth was because of the enmity against Richard for usurping the throne two years earlier and killing the legitimate young King Edward V and his younger brother in the process. Since those days the Ricardian Society have striven hard to clear his name in a misguided romantic fashion of rewriting history. Even telling us that the popular image of Richard III having a deformity that in mediaeval parlance was called being a hunchback or crookback was simply a Tudor construct and he was nothing of the kind. Of course when his body was located it was discovered that he indeed had that deformity.

Keep in mind if one does decide to visit his burial site that he was effectively a double child murderer. I understand that his position might have been in jeopardy had he allowed his 12 year old nephew, Edward V, and his younger brother Richard to live, but he was at the moment of their disappearance their guardian and they were killed on his watch undoubtedly on his orders so he could usurp the throne.

Great finish or should keeper have saved it? (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

Yes but we've had 20mph zones in Bristol for years.

It seems judging by the pedestrian pace of this game that the new 20mph zones have started in Wales a few hours early.

Apparently he was being told at the time that he would stand a far better chance of being picked to manage Scotland if he was the boss of a fairly large Scottish club. Like yourself I believe we had the momentum that season under Jordan to propel ourselves into the top flight.

I believe it was a disc that was played alongside the film

Yes Merrick's Marvels it is. Some stills to follow:

I have some stills from the 1920 semi final film David printed off for me. When I get home I will try to locate them and post them on here.

There was film of the 1909 Cup Final. This was still being shown in 1934 in local cinemas to mark the 25th anniversary of the event. But this film, presented to the City Council and kept at the Central Library, became a victim of the blitz. What happened to the copy presented to Manchester I don't know, but because it was on volatile nitrate stock I assume at some stage it self combusted or simply deteriorated beyond repair. The 1920 semi final v Huddersfield was filmed and I seen highlights at David Woods home. Iirc another early surviving film of Bristol City is of a match in the early 1920s at Clapton Orient attended, I believe, by the Prince of Wales, later Edward VIII. But this one is definitely up there with the earliest.

On Friday it was reported on Radio 5 Live that Luton Town were about to host their first Premier League game in their 138 year history. Wow that was really something...although under closer inspection not quite so astounding seeing that the Premier League didn't exist for the first 107 years of their history and that Luton played plenty of games in the top flight prior to that. Yesterday, Evan Ferguson scored a hat-trick for Brighton, one of only four players to score hat-tricks in Premier League history while still a teenager. This is all very well and to be commended but it completely overlooks the feats of other players, some still alive, who scored hat-tricks while still a teenager in the top flight prior to the inception of the Premier League. Our own Kevin Mabbutt, for instance, v Manchester United in 1978. (This feat was again overlooked when Mo Salah scored a hat-trick at Old Trafford and was lauded as the only player to score three at The Theatre of Dreams against Man Utd in Prem history...although Dennis Bailey of QPR was mentioned as that occurred the season before the Premier League started.) I know I am preaching, for the most part, to the converted, but I feel the media with their stance denigrates the achievements of all footballers and teams prior to the 1992-93 season. To my mind all that the formation of the Premier League did was enable the top flight clubs to be greedy. There was absolutely no difference in standards etc between the last Division One season and the first Premier League season that followed it. In the days of the old First Division European Champions were still produced and England actually won the World Cup. Yet the feats of these players who played in the top flight then seem to have been airbrushed from history as it wasn't the Premier League.

So far in history that's the only place that's evacuated quicker than the Dolman Stand after 80 mins.

I think you are right. My first match was earlier that season v Sheffield Wednesday who had just come down from the top flight. So I seen both Sheffield clubs before I seen both Bristol ones.

Fluorescent zebras spotted at Selhurst Park tonight.

When I was an 8 year old in about the fourth match I seen City play, I was in the East End with my father, Bristol City v Sheffield United. In a very close, contentious game Tony Currie scored the only goal of the match in the East End goal. As thousands were hurling abuse towards him from the stand when he scored, he stood in front of the East End blowing kisses. The showmanship was superb it knocked spots off of booing the villain in a pantomime and the impression it left on me has remained vibrant for over half a century. It summed up what football is all about and to me it defines the opposing reactions to a goal in the game. I much prefer this to having to mute celebrations in case of hurting the feelings of the already aggrieved at having conceded a goal. I love rubbing it in when I am elated at City scoring but equally I can take it when it's reciprocated.

Precisely. If anything, in comparison to their true financial draw with the men's game it can be argued that women at club level are being overpaid. It has to be remembered too that even at international level, where attendances are comparable to the men's, the tickets are usually a lot cheaper and at times given away for free and the TV audience is smaller. We are being fed an agenda, particularly in this country, to make it seem like the women's game is just as important as and on an equal par with the men's. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of us can see through this nonsense. I wish the Lionesses the best of luck today. I will be watching it, the first game I will have watched in this World Cup, which speaks volumes compared to the men's tournament where I put that first as much as humanly possible. It will still be a fabulous achievement and something the nation can be proud of, but to equate it with the men ever winning the World Cup is nonsense.

100% win rate when in goal for Bristol City.

And then when Italy came back into the game and it looked on the cards they'd equalise Southgate done sod all to change anything until the inevitable happened and they drew level.

Actually I think you are correct. It was considered that much of a shock at the time.