|
Title: Reading Post by: land_of_bo on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:16:48 OK, plastic fans bllah blah blah....
With 82 points, and 6 home games left, in the form they are in, does anyone else think our record of 102 points is in danger? Title: Reading Post by: McLovin on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:20:38 Didn't Sunderland beat our record a few years back?
Title: Reading Post by: land_of_bo on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:21:05 I thought they got 101?
Title: Reading Post by: McLovin on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 09:23:19 I don't know, i was just throwing it out there!
Title: Reading Post by: SwindonTartanArmy on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 10:18:30 im sure someone broke our record recently :(
Title: Reading Post by: OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 10:28:46 Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then.
None the less, we were the first team to accumulate that many points in a season. I do think it has been surpassed once or twice since then. Whatever the record is now, I am sure Reading will smash it into a thousand pieces though. Unless they take their foot off the gas once promotion is guaranteed, which can't be too far off now. Title: Reading Post by: land_of_bo on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:00:40 Quote from: "OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR" Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then. So what? That means we held the record number of points when it was 3 points for a win, they must have had the record for when it was 2 points for a win. 2 different records. I just did some research and Sunderland did manage 105 points in 98/99 - fuckers! Title: Reading Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:06:55 Quote from: "Dave Blackcurrant" Didn't Sunderland beat our record a few years back? yes when peter reid was in charge. they won the old div 1 (before it became the championship) with 105 points. still they also beat our record of the worst points tally ever recorded in the premiership so it evens out :D Title: Reading Post by: land_of_bo on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:07:42 Quote from: "Rich" Quote from: "Dave Blackcurrant" Didn't Sunderland beat our record a few years back? yes when peter reid was in charge. they won the old div 1 (before it became the championship) with 105 points. still they also beat our record of the worst points tally ever recorded in the premiership so it evens out :D And they'll beat their record again this year :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick: Title: Reading Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:10:53 probably :soapy tit wank:
Title: Reading Post by: OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:19:54 Quote from: "land_of_bo" Quote from: "OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR" Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then. So what? That means we held the record number of points when it was 3 points for a win, they must have had the record for when it was 2 points for a win. 2 different records. I just did some research and Sunderland did manage 105 points in 98/99 - fuckers! What do you mean 'so what'? It's not a an even playing field! Which is the best record: Ours? P: 46 W: 32 D: 6 L: 8 F: 82 A: 43 +39 PTS: 102 Or theirs? P: 46 W: 31 D: 11 L: 4 F: 107 A:37 +73 PTS: 104 (if it was three points for a win) That is why the record was always slightly dodgy. But let's just ignore that shall we? Title: Reading Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 11:20:56 yeah :D
Title: Reading Post by: Tails on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 12:07:19 Didn't Notts County or Fulham get 102 aswell?
Title: Reading Post by: Spud on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 12:08:30 Grrrrrrrrrrr i fucking hate Reading and their plastic fans!.
Title: Reading Post by: land_of_bo on Saturday, February 11, 2006, 13:10:57 Quote from: "OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR" Quote from: "land_of_bo" Quote from: "OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR" Our 'record' of 102 points was always a bit dodgy because Lincoln City would have got more than that in 74-75 season (I think) but there were only two points for a win back then. So what? That means we held the record number of points when it was 3 points for a win, they must have had the record for when it was 2 points for a win. 2 different records. I just did some research and Sunderland did manage 105 points in 98/99 - fuckers! What do you mean 'so what'? It's not a an even playing field! Which is the best record: Ours? P: 46 W: 32 D: 6 L: 8 F: 82 A: 43 +39 PTS: 102 Or theirs? P: 46 W: 31 D: 11 L: 4 F: 107 A:37 +73 PTS: 104 (if it was three points for a win) That is why the record was always slightly dodgy. But let's just ignore that shall we? I meant the record was for the record number of points...they had the record for when it was 2 points a win, we had it for when it was 3 points a win. It doesn't mae our record dodgy just because the points system was changed, it make is 2 seperate records. Title: Reading Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Sunday, February 12, 2006, 11:48:37 Quote from: "Tails" Didn't Notts County or Fulham get 102 aswell? i think you may be right there tails. im pretty sure fulham did Title: Reading Post by: Simon Pieman on Sunday, February 12, 2006, 11:50:51 I was expecting this to be about LoB's favouite novel. How disappointing.
|