um pahars

My worry is that we might just be a tad too thin with regards squad size. On our day, as has been proved so far, we're more than a match for anyone in this league. The confidence & ability of the 13 or 14 main players is decent enough to maintain this form, but in a couple of key areas we're a bit lightweight. Areas where we are obviously light is centre half (Martin next in line) and up front until Barnard is back, who I have doubts over, no one in line, so would need a reshuffle which then weakens us elsewhere). Personally I'd be going full tilt for a loanee or two, or hoping we can hold out until January and then looking hard to see what business we can do in the window.

Why did it mean they have to make those decisions? The Taylor report was very critical of the deicsions and actions of the Police on the day and was actually quite forceful that many of the key decisions take on the day were wrong. As Kraken says neither I, nor the Taylor report, dismiss the role supporters played on the day, nor the way previous behaviour impacted on all aspects of football and on that fateful day. Taylor makes reference to this throughout his report, but he does not deviate away from his findings that the main cause of the tragedy was the failings of the Police on the day. So I repeat, why did it mean they had to take those decisions?

We were side on, level with Baldock and in that millisecond where it had beaten Kelvin, we were all convinced the onion bag would soon be rippling. Would be interested to see just how close it was and whether Kelvin had it covered. Big miss.

No thanks. An irrelevance, let them wallow in their faux rivalry.

I must say I was perplexed when I saw Cork was not on the pitch and assumed he was injured, but fair dos to Adkins as he obviously thought about what we were up against (some big units playing hoofball) and played a team to counteract this. Would have him back in against Reading though!!

I'm a real Cork fan, but he was terrible tonight. Rabbit in the headlights performance who couldn't get in to the game. Must be hard coming on late in the game with the opposition pushing for an equaliser, but he was still very bad.

That is what has impressed me about these run of games in that when we have had a one goal lead we seem to be able to hold on to it.

Certainly did his cause no harm with a bustling no nonsense display against a team playing hoofball tonight.

A pretty impressive performance tonight and although not too many clear cut chances we bossed the game for large periods. The midfield was full of running and the defence resillient. Not our usual sparkle up front, but that was the only real downside. Have to say that for the obvious talented players that West ham have at their disposal the tactics and spirit of the side seemed to be very poor. Very much route one, which we dealt with admirably. They looked a big side, but for the main we stifled their long ball game. Davies -8- A couple of good saves, one very good Richardson -7- Solid at the back, pushed up as well, but apprehansive to get the ball in the box Hooiveld -8- Solid game, bullet header, much better Fonte -7- Performed well against route one hoofball, but almost cost us when he went airballing on the halfway line in the 2nd half Fox -8- Best game I have seen him play. Very confident on the ball Spiderman -7- Played alright, but not outstanding Hammond -9- Bossed the game and loads of energy. Eclipsed Nolan by some way Chaplow -8.5- Full of running, pushed on when we had the ball and got amongst them Guly -7- Missed what looked like a sitter, but always provided an outlet, just wanted a bit more from him. Connoly -7- OK, but nto as good as I have seen him. First touch let him down tonight, but always looking for the ball. Lambert -8- Up against a robust defence but always willing to provide an outlet.

Ignorant, argumentative or just ill informed? I'll let others be the judge of that, but I would say this is a prime example that if you throw enough mud then some of it will still be sticking 20+ years later. The only real positive of this thread is that it has shown that the debate & motion was indeed required and the promise of full disclosure of all documents might go some way to educating and enlightening the more ignorant out there.

My only question would whether declaring themselves bankrupt actually means they are skint (as opposed to it being a way of fobbing off their creditors). Saw them down the Guildhall in their pomp about 80/81. Signing Off was a superb album, and although Labour of Love wasn't bad, just didn't give me the same fee (bit too commercial and not as raw).

May I suggest you offer your wife out for the day and you go and do what you want to do??

The Taylor Report and other research would not agree with this anecdotal evidence. Taylor dismisses the notion of ticketless fans as being a major problem. Additionally various methods of counting the fans at the Leppings Lane end agree that the total in the Leppings Lane end was within the capacity of the day, but the problem was that once inside the outer "concourse" then too many funnelled their way down in to the middle pens. Footage at the time showed that whilst the middle sections were over crowded, the end sections and particularly the Northe West corner section were nowhere near full. If you had even been to Hillsborough before that day then you would be aware that once through the turnstiles you had a sterile outside concourse area and then faced with three or four tunnels going under the stand channelling you to one of 4 or 5 penned areas to stand. Sorry, Kraken, didn't see your response that should be enough to put this myth to bed. However, I did include the bit about my personal experience of the Leppings Lane End as having been there it is easy to see how you could have been channelled through those tunnels under then stands (like very small subways) on to a packed terrace without being aware of it. From the outside "concourse" you couldn't see the various pens so would have no idea if they were empty or full.

Good shout, the game where Gus Poyet would have spontaneously combusted had he been in charge of Brighton back then!!

Surprised it's taken this long to get to this as other matches have been done this way for a few years now. Like Mr Grant, I will be interested to see if it's replicated going the other way (something tells me it won't!!!!). That said the arrangements for sorting out the tickets seems so cumbersome, print this form off, send/hand this form in, await for e-mail, then come and pick it up etc etc etc. Better off getting a ticket in the home end when they go on General Sale down there and saving yourself the hassle

Wouldn't have thought so as we hit second place after going on a 9 game unbeaten run after losing the semi final. Might have been possible when we went away to Ipswich in February 1982, when we were top and Ipswich were either 2nd or 3rd. (not the best omen though as we lost 5-2!!!!!!!!)

I believe the current issue is not another round of police bashing, nor an ambulance chase, but instead a push to get all the evidence in the public domain mainly to try and understand why/if people pushed/sanctioned the original myths/cover up (myths which appear to have stood the test of time if this thread is anything to go by). The view (and I am not swayed either way until the evidence is out there) is that there was a widespread conspiracy (at least further than those officers onthe day) within the establishment to try and exonerate the police/authorities and to push the blame elsewhere and that this went to the top of the Establishment (including parts of the media).

Taylor is quite clear that the main factor was the "the actions of the Police" and I think you may have been somewhat harsh on him if you think that came easy to him. If anything, I would have thought he found it quite difficult to rule that a part of the establishment was mainly to blame (which leads on to the conspiracy issues where other parts of the esatblishment were only too happy to try and exonerate the Police and pass the blame elsewhere, which is where the recent debate is focussed). And Talyor does not shy away from stating that he believed actions of the fans played their part as well, it's all clear in the report and subsequent analysis.

I would quite agree, and I have no problem with people coming to their own opinion or viewpoint about any number of issues. But I think it would be somewhat more acceptable if they had taken time to review and evaluate the evidence involved, as opposed to just trotting out so many of the myths that have been spun over the years.

As with Frank, with all due respect I would rather go with Lord Justice Taylor's view on how wide he felt his remit was as opposed to yours. Not being patronising, I just think he is/was a lot closer to the action than you are/were. Indeed there is, but you claimed "he is not blaming the police", which is patently incorrect. Taylor goes on to mention other factors, but his main reason for the disaster was relating to the Police.

"My terms of reference are extremely wide". And you have obviously not read the Report if you don't think he doesn't blame the Police, "the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control" or the ground.

The Leppings Lane end held just under 15,000 so just as when we went there in 1984 with similar numbers, we were still well short of the 15,000 or so trying to be accomodated on that fateful day. However, as Taylor pointed out, "My father & grandfather stood safely on this terrace" is not really the most convincing argument to put forward. And I don't doubt that the human element, the dynamic environment and crowd psychology played a part on that day, and Taylor does not ignore this, but in his findings he said they were secondary factors.

Totally at odds with what Lord Justice Taylor said regarding the Hillsborough disaster and as much as I like you Frank, I think he is somewhat more qualified and better briefed than you on the subject.

If you are that interested in the issues of the day, Google the Taylor Report and read it properly. Then come back and debate the issues at hand. I really don't want to get drawn in to debunking the various myths that were propagated at the time, after all someone far more qualified with more evidence than I have ever seen has already debunked them. It's just a pity that once the mud was thrown it has tended to stick. But my only contribution to answering your question would be that I very much doubt if the Leppings Lane terrace had to cope with 10,000 fans on that many occasions. When it did in 1981 during a FA Cup Semi Final between Spurs and Wolves, their were something like 40 crush injuries on the very same terrace. There were also reports of crushing in the 1988 semi final.

What is quite clear to me is that too many people on this thread are posting without having read The Taylor Report and instead are relying on the discredited, ill informed and disingenuous media reporting of the time (the myths of that reporting are still with us today). Ticketless fans, drunken hoardes, gates being smashed down - all myths put about by people attempting to deflect the blame and all dismissed by the Taylor Report. If you really want a simple and straightforward background to events on that day and what the current debate is all about, then Steve Rotherham's opening gambit in last nights speech is a good place to start. He quickly dispels some of the myths, lies and innuendo that still persist if this thread is anything to go by. As someone who stood on that terrace five years earlier in a quarter final of the FA Cup, the "There but for the grace of God" line resonates with me!!! http://http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2011/10/17/hillsborough-debate-liverpool-mp-steve-rotheram-s-opening-speech-in-full-100252-29611412/