It is amazing how people see things differently. Nowhere does it say attacking team buses is ok. My interpretation of what he wrote was that the people throwing bottles on Saturday belonged to the Millwall of 45 years ago who attacked the bus, not the Millwall of today. All about opinions I suppose.
"Not that I think throwing bottles is big or clever – in fact it’s a bit cowardly.
I would much rather they followed our Millwall forefathers, who exactly 45 years ago to the day attacked the Plymouth team bus after the Pilgrims ended our 59 home game unbeaten run."
No - News Shopper makes a good point, although I would only read it that way after your comment. It is not good journalism.
The "journalist" who wrote the article means that he wishes the supporters would have been following the club 45 years ago, and not his club in this day and age.
I would much rather they followed our Millwall forefathers, who exactly 45 years ago to the day attacked the Plymouth team bus after the Pilgrims ended our 59 home game unbeaten run
What does this mean then
to me it reads instead of throwing bottles i would rather you samshed the away teams bus after they beat Millwall
At no point does it insinuate that i wish they would have been following Millwall 45 years ago
It is a blog about Millwall written by a Millwall fan. Blogs and journalism aren't the same thing.
I double checked with someone here about the Plymouth bus remark and they agreed with me it was ok to go with. like I say, all about opinions plus readers have every opportunity to leave a comment at the end of the blog if they disagree with it.
Stopped reading when I got to "As I was chopping the veg listening to the radio on Sunday....."
Sounds like one of the the "play the hard man geezer when at 'Wall with the lads loving the aggro before reverting back to being the middle class "modern man" running round after the missus and begging for the remote control so he can catch a glimpse of Top Gear between cooking her tea and hoovering round her feet" element they attract from the leafy suburbs. Ergo I follow Millwall therefore I'm a bit tasty (even though I went to a soft grammar school and work in accounts).
Will read the rest later and perhaps he's not a prize plonker but I'm not holding my breath.
nth london addick - As I said before to me that means he would much rather the people who threw bottles on Saturday went back in time 45 years rather than follow the Millwall of 2012.
News shopper - you should be a politician. Just hold your hands up - it's wrong and to interpret it any other way would need a seriously poor grasp of english.
If as Newshopper is saying it was meaning something along the lines of "Millwall 2012 doesnt want fans like that" he'll be sorely disappointed as it's (rightly or wrongly) part of what they're about as a club.
Other than those from the manor or with family ties to the club why else would new support flock there from as far flung places as medway if it werent for the rep and "I'm 'ard by association"....it aint for the football.
Sorry News Shopper, but the way you're interpreting it would read "I would much rather they followed Millwall with our forefathers, who exactly 45 years ago to the day attacked the Plymouth team bus after the Pilgrims ended our 59 home game unbeaten run" what he has said is that he would rather they "followed" their forefathers example.
Either way there is alot in this piece that glamourises violence (the mention of Muscat is particuarly tasteless given his track record).
And surely this line states that he's proud of the violence at Millwall "They would think I was pretty perverse for being proud of my club after a 6-0 home drubbing, amid scenes of bottles being launched onto the pitch and an opposition player being subbed for his own safety"
This is a really poor article and IMO shouldn't have been published.
Why on earth should they do that mlc? Why does everything have to be uber pc? It's just some whally writing a blog about football (and showing himself up a bit in the process).. .not government policy.
@mid_life_crisis - Don't be so bloody sensitive . If you don't like it say why. To call for it to be withdrawn is pathetic . It's a badly written article and because of that he makes himself look an idiot , that's the only problem I see with it.( and the fact that he's a spanner )
As the sentence is currently constructed, there is no way it could mean what Newshopper is trying to make it mean. "Following your Millwall forefathers" doesn't mean following Millwall in the time of your forefathers; it means emulating them.
Seriously? This got through professional editing?
(Agh, beaten to it by se9addick - but I agree with the others, no need for an apology, just seems a bit of a silly thing to print)
Comments
I would much rather they followed our Millwall forefathers, who exactly 45 years ago to the day attacked the Plymouth team bus after the Pilgrims ended our 59 home game unbeaten run."
I don't know how you can read this any other way?
The "journalist" who wrote the article means that he wishes the supporters would have been following the club 45 years ago, and not his club in this day and age.
Still, poor journalism.
If it was 'all about opinions' we wouldn't have any 'right' or 'wrong' would we?
Geddit?
What does this mean then
to me it reads instead of throwing bottles i would rather you samshed the away teams bus after they beat Millwall
At no point does it insinuate that i wish they would have been following Millwall 45 years ago
I double checked with someone here about the Plymouth bus remark and they agreed with me it was ok to go with. like I say, all about opinions plus readers have every opportunity to leave a comment at the end of the blog if they disagree with it.
Sounds like one of the the "play the hard man geezer when at 'Wall with the lads loving the aggro before reverting back to being the middle class "modern man" running round after the missus and begging for the remote control so he can catch a glimpse of Top Gear between cooking her tea and hoovering round her feet" element they attract from the leafy suburbs.
Ergo I follow Millwall therefore I'm a bit tasty (even though I went to a soft grammar school and work in accounts).
Will read the rest later and perhaps he's not a prize plonker but I'm not holding my breath.
what a bunch of back uns
couldve done with a little tweak perhaps
yeah i read it the other way but see where you're coming from
i'd hope it is the way you read it ... but knowing that scummy lot you never know !
Other than those from the manor or with family ties to the club why else would new support flock there from as far flung places as medway if it werent for the rep and "I'm 'ard by association"....it aint for the football.
Either way there is alot in this piece that glamourises violence (the mention of Muscat is particuarly tasteless given his track record).
And surely this line states that he's proud of the violence at Millwall
"They would think I was pretty perverse for being proud of my club after a 6-0 home drubbing, amid scenes of bottles being launched onto the pitch and an opposition player being subbed for his own safety"
This is a really poor article and IMO shouldn't have been published.
Seriously? This got through professional editing?
(Agh, beaten to it by se9addick - but I agree with the others, no need for an apology, just seems a bit of a silly thing to print)
It just proves what we've always known about most Millwall fans and their glorification of violence.
It's all they have and they cling onto it regardless. All rather sad but that's Millwall.