Search results

Sounds familiar.

Get in! I bloody love injury time.

Robins needs to get the defence sorted at half time. Tell them its not compulsory to play out from the back if there's no options that don't put us under pressure.

In which case someone from the trust really should have stopped him talking to the media as if he was speaking on their behalf.

Surely was easier to score there, not even on target.

Get in, I was swearing at him thinking he'd messed that up to be honest.

Need to get a grip here. Could easily be 2 down.

That was terrible from Marosi. I get that Robins wants them to play out from the back but you can't put your defenders in that situation.

Does Botham have a criminal record or did he just fail a drugs test and get a ban?

Imagine if next season they decide League 1 is called Championship 2. That's about the level of difference there was.

Bit of shame that far more people are outraged that Moz can't have a night down the pub than were bothered about our own fans being abused on social media.

That’s good news and I would have thought incredibly lucky if he was shot in the back of the head.

The Trust may or may not be organising a protest on the date of Wasps first game but not against Wasps and it may or may not be at the Ricoh. Clear?

It does read that way but surely that can't be right. Not even the trust would do something that stupid would they?

The company that have put in the application have only one director listed. If you google him you can find his Instagram which is full of pictures of him at Wasps games so would be surprised if this isn't linked to Wasps. Seems odd to build it there and not on the site they agreed a lease with...

Surely its got to be linked with ACL / Wasps / CCC. They've been trying for years to get another hotel on site. As funny as it would be it would be spectacular incompetence to be unable to get that project moved forward while someone builds one literally next to the site.

Think it would have been better handled in private. Irrespective of what anyone thinks of the original decision there was no need for Moz to go public with it. He's not naive and would be aware what would follow. Personally would have just contacted them directly and expressed disappointment...

No surprise there. Did it really need Moz to broadcast this on social media rather than deal with it in private?

And that's the tricky part. Where would you draw the line and what criteria are you using for which board members you deem acceptable. Not saying I agree with their decision but I can see the sense in having a clear policy that's applied the same to anyone.