# Team RadioShack to appear before UCI Disciplinary Commission



## yello (26 Jul 2010)

Press release on the UCI website





> The International Cycling Union (UCI) wishes to announce that disciplinary proceedings will be opened against Team RadioShack, for breaching the regulations governing riders’ clothing. The UCI regrets that an initiative for a cause as worthy as the fight against cancer was not coordinated beforehand with the Commissaires and organisers of the event. This could have been done whilst remaining within the rules.


----------



## rich p (26 Jul 2010)

I heard that the penalty was that Armstrong won't be allowed to compete in the TdF again and that McQuaid has threatened to give him the $120k back


----------



## yello (26 Jul 2010)

From CyclingNews....



> During the stage itself, RadioShack manager Johan Bruyneel vented his frustration via Twitter, fuming “Ok people! Now it’s official! To be a race commissar you don’t need brains but only know the rules! Their motto: ‘c’est le reglement!’”



Well, that will have endeared him to the Commissionaires won't it?


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Jul 2010)

Hmm, why on earth didn't your riders sign in wearing the Black jerseys then, Johan?

A shabby episode that is doing neither side very much credit, I'm afraid.


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Jul 2010)

Yello, I think they're deliberately stoking up a phoney war here.

The UCI are caught in a cleft stick, if they say "Oh well, it's for a good cause, we'll let you off" people will accuse them of favouring Armstrong & point knowingly to the payments of latter years. If they proceed with action against The Shack they look like petty oafs who LOVE CANCER.

Ahem. If the story that Radioshack signed in wearing standard kit, and then got changed is true, I think the picture is of a publicity stunt with little thought given to the impression it would give of the tour's officials, or the UCI.


----------



## yello (26 Jul 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> If the story that Radioshack signed in wearing standard kit, and then got changed is true, I think the picture is of a publicity stunt with little thought given to the impression it would give of the tour's officials, or the UCI.



Personally, I have little doubt it was a publicity stunt. I also think it takes a stupefying belief in your own importance to use a major event like that. It"s massively disrespectful imo and, for that alone, deserves punishment. To UCI's credit (and that's not something you'll read from me very often!) they've tried to head off any 'love cancer' criticisms by announcing that they'll donate any fines to the Swiss anti-cancer league.


----------



## Chuffy (26 Jul 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Ahem. If the story that Radioshack signed in wearing standard kit, and then got changed is true, I think the picture is of a publicity stunt with little thought given to the impression it would give of the tour's officials, or the UCI.


Or of Team Shack, half nekkid at the side of the road and looking very grumpy about it.

My best guess is that they thought that no-one would challenge them, even though they were well aware that they were breaking the, extremely well known, rule. Perhaps they assumed that they wouldn't have been granted permission if they had asked? What they hadn't counted on was the commissionaires not being prepared to play ball. Shabby behaviour from Team Shack and credit to the commissionaires for not being bullied into submission.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm absolutely certain that what _actually_ happened wasn't what the Shackstrong PR team had intended. Anything said by them to the contrary is just an attempt to salvage some dignity from the sorry mess. You don't deliberately set up a PR stunt that makes your clients look stupid. 

* - just for the peace of mind of anyone who thinks that I automatically froth bile at the mere mention of that cheating son-of-a-bitch Armstrong, I don't have a problem with the idea of the team wearing Livestrong kit on the final stage. That's a perfectly reasonable PR stunt, gets them a shedload of publicity shots for future campaigns plus some airtime down the Champs. Nothing dishonorable about that, the embarrassment comes from Shack assuming that they could do what they liked without bothering to do the polite thing and check it out first.


----------



## yello (26 Jul 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Nothing dishonorable about that, the embarrassment comes from Shack assuming that they could do what they liked *without bothering to do the polite thing and check it out first*.



That about sums up my position on it too. How difficult would it have been to have asked?


----------



## Noodley (26 Jul 2010)

yello said:


> How difficult would it have been to have asked?



For Lance? Very.


----------



## Chuffy (26 Jul 2010)

Noodley said:


> For Lance? Very.


How could anyone turn him down? Bitches must love cancer or something.


----------



## Ashtrayhead (27 Jul 2010)

As much as I've been an admirer of Lance Armstrong in the past, I did find this episode to be embarrassing and a bit arrogant of him to try and upstage the winner of the Tour and steal the limelight. I'm sure he wouldn't have liked it if it had been done by anyone else during one of his seven wins.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

There would have been more occasional/casual viewers watching than cycling experts/purists, along with many first timers, and the stunt has clearly worked by giving Livestrong and Radioshack free air time and continued column inches.

Heck, even Here on the web it is getting space.

Fine them what they like, you think Radioshack won't put a positive spin on the donation aspect, and the bulk of the world will lap it up.

Like it or not, the stunt worked


----------



## gb155 (27 Jul 2010)

BUT you have gotta admit that kit, looked very sweet


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

johnnyh said:


> Like it or not, the stunt worked



Would you still think so if Radioshack the company removed their sponsorship from the cycling team for bringing their name into disrepute?


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

yello said:


> Would you still think so if Radioshack the company removed their sponsorship from the cycling team for bringing their name into disrepute?



You seriously think that will happen?

First tdf and a shed load of publicity created by a Texan hero for an American retailer. They couldn't buy that air time, and they have the right people to put a positive spin on it as needs be.

Was a sweet looking kit too!


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

Who knows if it will happen but it's certainly the type of thing that does happen. Sponsorship doesn't come free. You have to consider the interests of your sponsor. Radioshack corp could well decide that they don't want their image and brand manipulated by a hero Texan with a hot head and a different agenda.

Not all publicity is desirable. Not all column inches are welcomed.


----------



## Noodley (27 Jul 2010)

I saw a RadioShack shop for the first time a few weeks ago, and didn't go in as I thought "I'm not giving my money to any company that funds Lance"....looked quite a nice shop as well.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

Used to get Radioshack stuff in Tandy stores years ago.

The Radioshack people will have authorised the production of those jerseys and most likely known about it. You think the average shack customer in the good ol us of a will care what some French race organiser thinks? As said, Radioshack can put whatever spin they like on this, as can Livestrong,

Even better than a load of Dutch models in orange dresses being kicked out of a world cup game!


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

johnnyh said:


> The Radioshack people will have authorised the production of those jerseys and most likely known about it.



Known of the jerseys, I'd agree. "most likely" knew of their use... maybe. Totally aware of the circumstances of there use? I somehow doubt. 

I personally very much doubt any corporation would okay a deliberate violation of rules. They certainly are not going to admit to it. Even the rules of some foreign bike race. Imo, that's bad publicity no matter how you spin it. The sort of stuff that, at the very least, has frantic corporate emails and memos flying about. Radioshack corp will be asking questions, of that I'm sure.

But we're in the world of conjecture. Neither of us know what happened. One thing is fact, Radioshack are facing fines for a breach of rules.


----------



## rich p (27 Jul 2010)

It was sad as I thought it showed Armstrong up as a self-promoting, self-serving, manipulative opportunist pr*ck whereas until then I'd alsways thought of him as a self-promoting, manipulative......

Oh, hang on a minute!


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

My take, trying to take a non-critical middle ground, is that Team Radioshack/Livestrong/Armstrong genuinely believed that they could act in a manner that disregarded both Corp Radioshack AND theTdF/UCI because fighting cancer was more important. 

I think, as a PR 'stunt', it wasn't calculated to pan out as it has. In that respect, I'd say it was a failure because it's out of control. Radioshack have now to respond and 'spin' to mitigate damage.

Looking further down the line, I'm now wondering whether for Armstrong personally it might actually backfire. Pissing off UCI is perhaps not a good idea when they're on the eve of receiving info from the Feds on the actions of team USPS. If there are/were friends in high places then there might well be the sound of rats and sinking ships going in different directions!


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

And there we have it, the horror is fuelled by personal feelings to Lance.

The fine will be of little significance to a large corporate retailer, and the UCI have already given both Shack and Livestrong the perfect outcome with the donation to a cancer charity. If Armstrong really wants to gain more from it all he has to do is match the amount in donation and look an even bigger hero back home.

Think what you like but the man knows what he is doing, and the Shack people know it too.


----------



## John the Monkey (27 Jul 2010)

johnnyh said:


> And there we have it, the horror is fuelled by personal feelings to Lance.
> 
> ...
> 
> Think what you like but the man knows what he is doing, and the Shack people know it too.



ALL U HATERZ R JUS JELUS...?

Far more about having *some* respect for a race with 100 years plus of history, for the other competitors, and for the sport as a whole, which needs further controversy like it needs holes in its bidons.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> ALL U HATERZ R JUS JELUS...?
> 
> Far more about having *some* respect for a race with 100 years plus of history, for the other competitors, and for the sport as a whole, which needs further controversy like it needs holes in its bidons.




The Tour is one big 3 week rolling advertisement, money and exposure is key in the same way as any other big event. 

If the UCI were really hacked off, and I reckon they are more hacked off at JB for his tweet than the jerseys, then they could simply deny Radioshack a place in next years tour... but I don't see that happening either.


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

johnnyh said:


> And there we have it, the horror is fuelled by personal feelings to Lance.


I have no idea how you reach that as a conclusion! I was actually trying to see it from Armstrong's perspective! So please point out to me the statements that have lead you to believe what you do and I will do my best to explain my thinking behind them.



> The fine will be of little significance to a large corporate retailer


Corp Radioshack won't pay the fine - Team Radioshack will. And, to the corp, it'll not be about the fine but damage to their corporate image. The sponsored the team to promote their brand and image, not the reverse. They will clearly question the effects that this stunt has had on them.



> and the UCI have already given both Shack and Livestrong the perfect outcome with the donation to a cancer charity.


To a Swiss cancer organisation. And, again, that's not a "perfect" or intended result. It's an 'after the fact' spin to mitigate damage. Livestrong could have donated that amount anyway without the associated negative press. 



> If Armstrong really wants to gain more from it all he has to do is match the amount in donation and look an even bigger hero back home.


I think that'd make him look even more disrespectful to be honest. As if he doesn't take the judgement seriously! That really would have the sponsors ripping up contracts!!




> Think what you like but the man knows what he is doing, and the Shack people know it too.


I have never questioned that he knows what he's doing. It's his motivation that I question.

Johnnyh, if you want me to take you seriously then engage with my arguments rather than taking the line that I just hate Lance Armstrong. Whilst I am no fan, I do attempt to be objective. Your repetition of 'they'll spin it to win it' is seeing only one side of the affair.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

I believe your constant thoughts on "Radioshack will drop the team" are as unfounded as thoughts that HTC would drop Cav after the V sign.

I am not saying you are either hating or loving Lance - that was at the previous post to yours, but why do you bring it back to him, surely this is a team thing? And from Armstrong's point of view it couldn't work out better than all this hullabaloo and publicity (which he seems to thrive on) and a donation to a cancer charity in Europe.

Where is Radioshacks market... US of A? What do you reckon the average Joe on the streets of the USA will make of it? Do you think they will be outraged at the disrespect shown to a race on French soil by one of their own, or do you think it will simply put the Livestrong and Radioshack identities into their heads and add to their 'love' of the French.

Given the outrage you would have thought Radioshack's share price would have been in free fall! 

Come on, get real.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

anyway, we shall agree to disagree no doubt.

let's see how it pans out, but I expect Radioshack to be there next year and Livestrong to be none the worse for it.

as for the UCI gunning for Lance, well nothing new there.


----------



## John the Monkey (27 Jul 2010)

johnnyh said:


> as for the UCI gunning for Lance, well nothing new there.



Err - the UCI that let him start the Tour Down Under last year despite not having been in the out of competition testing scheme long enough?

The UCI that "leapt to his defence" during the contretemps with the AFLD last year?

The UCI that said that even if the current investigation into him revealed he had doped, Mr Armstrong would "remain one of the biggest champions in the sport."

With enemies like those, eh?


----------



## montage (27 Jul 2010)

Surely this very thread has proved that the PR stunt seems to have been effective. 300 views and rising. Most people who watched that stage will talk about it to their friends or online at some point.

It has most definately raised awareness for radioshack, but less so than intended for livestrong - and the riders did look a bit silly.
The question is, is any PR good PR?


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2010)

montage said:


> Surely this very thread has proved that the PR stunt seems to have been effective. 300 views and rising. Most people who watched that stage will talk about it to their friends or online at some point.


Yup, we're all aware of cancer now. Do you really think that if they had worn the jerseys though the stage that the likes of Phil'n'Paul wouldn't have mentioned them every five minutes? Or that a shot of the whole team heading the peloton down the Champs wouldn't have been a better PR shot than Kloden half naked by the roadside?



> It has most definately raised awareness for radioshack, but less so than intended for livestrong - and the riders did look a bit silly.
> *The question is, is any PR good PR*?


And the answer is 'no'. Sure, this whole fiasco has got _some _attention (less than you would assume from a discussion thread like this) but it's not good, for Shack, Livestrong or Tex himself. Thanks to the way that they handled it, they have had to go for damage limitation.

Incidentally, do you really believe that Team Tex has to play cheap stunts just to get noticed? They were looking to maximise the attention that they would have got anyway in order to promote the whole Livestrong thing. They screwed up. End of...


----------



## rich p (27 Jul 2010)

Try asking everyone you know what occurred with respect to Livestrong and Radioshack on Sunday and I will stake my left testicle on anyone other than a cycling nut to remember anything about it. 
We are not a representative sample on this forum and there's only about 10 of us who care enough to keep banging on about it.
Ultimately it will have little or no impact apart from reinforcing what the majority of cycling followers know.


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

johnnyh said:


> I believe your constant thoughts on "Radioshack will drop the team"


I mentioned it once as the type of thing that sponsors do. That neither constitutes "constant" nor my belief that it will happen.



> but why do you bring it back to him, surely this is a team thing?


I don't. I actually expressed the jersey decision as a team/livestrong/Armstrong thing purely for the reason that I recognise it as collective. That there are implications for Armstrong as an individual is, I would have thought, obvious.

Are you then suggesting that Radioshack corp don't give a damn and are quite happy to be seen as a company that will disrespect other countries and their national events - just because they may have no (current) market presence there and the average American doesn't give a shoot either? Hardly a positive image is it? Can't see the marketing dept giving that the thumbs up! 



> Come on, get real.


What makes your conjecture any more real than my thoughts? I am a least happy to acknowledge that I am thinking about possible ramifications rather than suggesting that things are as I see them.

I think you're being naive johnny. This is about more than just the amount of PR. There are broader concerns and may even be further fallout, maybe not public but certainly in offices.

But , as you suggest, I'm happy to agree to disagree.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2010)

Where is KennyKool? We need his perspective on this before we come to any conslusion.


----------



## Chrisc (27 Jul 2010)

Didn't the livestrong shirts still have the radioshack name on them and re-good/bad publicity, didn't Festina enjoy record watch sales in 1998?


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

Chrisc said:


> didn't Festina enjoy record watch sales in 1998?



I believe they did, yes! I'm not sure they'd have planned it that way though! Maybe there is no such thing as bad publicity. Certainly RyanAir seem to take that line! 


What next though? Corporate sponsorship of serial killers! Brought to you by XYZ Fizzy Drinks, because we like to gun down half your neighbourhood!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jul 2010)

late to the party but I'll add two words.

Super.Mario.


----------



## Dave Davenport (27 Jul 2010)

rich p said:


> Try asking everyone you know what occurred with respect to Livestrong and Radioshack on Sunday and I will stake my left testicle on anyone other than a cycling nut to remember anything about it.
> We are not a representative sample on this forum and there's only about 10 of us who care enough to keep banging on about it.
> Ultimately it will have little or no impact apart from reinforcing what the majority of cycling followers know.




I agree Rich, but I'm not staking my left testicle on it. It's the only one I've bloody got!


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2010)

rich p said:


> Try asking everyone you know what occurred with respect to Livestrong and Radioshack on Sunday and I will stake my left testicle on anyone other than a cycling nut to remember anything about it.
> We are not a representative sample on this forum and there's only about 10 of us who care enough to keep banging on about it.
> Ultimately it will have little or no impact apart from reinforcing what the majority of cycling followers know.



Top point, well made.

You're right. And sadly I forget and need to be reminded. So thank you for that.

Hills of beans and all that....


----------



## Archie (27 Jul 2010)

US perspective on the "Controversy". 

http://news.yahoo.co...jersey-21070910


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

Archie said:


> US perspective on the "Controversy".
> 
> http://news.yahoo.co...jersey-21070910




bingo.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2010)

So what? That's not even four corners, let alone a full card! They’re making the best of a bad job, spinning a PR line at the media long after the event. They’d have got more and better coverage if it had worked as intended. If you want to stick to the ‘any coverage is good’ line then be my guest. Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the monster in the closet probably agree with you.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

and I expect most of Radioshacks target audience will too.


----------



## johnnyh (27 Jul 2010)

oh, and I am not saying it is right, just my feeling on how it is.


----------



## kennykool (27 Jul 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Where is KennyKool? We need his perspective on this before we come to any conslusion.



Here I am Chuffy!

I couldnt believe they told them to change - the black outfits were much nicer than the radioshack ones  

All hail King Lance

PS - although i dont like the radioshack outfit I still bought one. Been scoruing the net to find the New "28" Livestrong kit


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2010)

Kenny! Where have you been hiding? You missed seeing your boy take one hell of a beating!


----------



## kennykool (27 Jul 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Kenny! Where have you been hiding? You missed seeing your boy take one hell of a beating!



One of the reasons I've been hiding Chuffy. Bad luck for LA this year - as the commentaors said - he had more bad luck this year than he had in every previous Tour he had ridden.

Otherwise he would have won ha ha


Seriously tho I have been setting up 3 new businesses of late so not had much time......I've still been looking on the forum just not posting..low profile after Lance's first fall....or was he pushed?


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2010)

kennykool said:


> Seriously tho I have been setting up 3 new businesses of late so not had much time......I've still been looking on the forum just not posting..low profile after Lance's first fall....or was he pushed?


I was nowhere near and you can't prove otherwise. 

Good luck with the businesses.


----------



## Hont (27 Jul 2010)

Noodley said:


> I saw a RadioShack shop for the first time a few weeks ago, and didn't go in as I thought "I'm not giving my money to any company that funds Lance"....looked quite a nice shop as well.


I have the same thought with regard to Trek Bikes - especially after the Lemond lawsuit. Just bought a new hybrid for the wife from a Specialized/Trek dealer. Didn't spend long looking at the Treks.


----------



## Noodley (27 Jul 2010)

Hont said:


> I have the same thought with regard to Trek Bikes - especially after the Lemond lawsuit. Just bought a new hybrid for the wife from a Specialized/Trek dealer. Didn't spend long looking at the Treks.



Yep, Trek is on my list. As is Bontrager.
And Nike. And Subaru. And Coke. And I'm buggered if I'll be using the US Postal Service to send my mail!!!


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2010)

I refuse to wear long socks or anything yellow.


----------



## rich p (27 Jul 2010)

I've gone so far as to stop micro-dosing and I've decided against giving Hein Verbruggen a bribe donation of $100,000.

I'd already given up HGH as I'm still only 4' 10"


----------



## Crankarm (27 Jul 2010)

rich p said:


> I've gone so far as to stop micro-dosing and I've decided against giving Hein Verbruggen a bribe donation of $100,000.
> 
> *I'd already given up HGH* as I'm still only 4' 10"



But when taken by some people it is known to have an opposite effect ..............................


----------



## justAl (30 Jul 2010)

Typical Lance stunt really. But why didn't they just register a kit highlighting the cause in the first place, similar to Barcelona FC and UNICEF?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Jul 2010)

justAl said:


> Typical Lance stunt really. But why didn't they just register a kit highlighting the cause in the first place, similar to Barcelona FC and UNICEF?



I guess because, unlike Barcelona, which is a fan-owned club reflecting the spirit of the city, Lance is a law - and an ego - unto himself. He's the Bono of the cycling world.


----------



## andrew_s (30 Jul 2010)

justAl said:


> Typical Lance stunt really. But why didn't they just register a kit highlighting the cause in the first place, similar to Barcelona FC and UNICEF?



Or, in cycling, like the ONCE team strip showing a blind man with cane.
(ONCE being the Spanish equivalent of the RNIB).

Presumably that wouldn't help with getting Radioshack sponsorship.
ONCE were OK with it because they were sole sponsor, advertising the lottery they got the bulk of their income from.


----------



## andy_wrx (30 Jul 2010)

The sheer gall of it amuses me 

- they turned-up for riders sign-on in Radio Shat jerseys, with the numbers stuck on the back
- but they then changed into the new black kit and transferred the numbers over for the start
- when challenged by the 'commissars' (and that's a disingenuity if ever I saw one, Johan...), the Radio Shat jerseys were easily to hand in the team cars to change back into
- but of course transferring the numbers back meant they had to stop at the roadside and halt the peloton

This was no mistake or misunderstanding, it was an intentional flouting of the rules and so should be treated appropriately 
- ban the team from next year's Tour
- ban Lance Armstrong and Johan Buyneel from any UCI-santioned event, or any event sanctioned by a UCI-member national body

That'd teach em


----------



## Noodley (30 Jul 2010)

justAl said:


> Typical Lance stunt really. But why didn't they just register a kit highlighting the cause in the first place, similar to Barcelona FC and UNICEF?



Brechin City FC, another fan-owned club, have just announced that they will be sporting "Cancer Research UK" on their shirts this year....

....so support Cancer Research in the UK and buy a Brechin top rather than a RadioShack cycling top!


----------



## Chuffy (30 Jul 2010)

Noodley said:


> Brechin City FC, another fan-owned club, have just announced that they will be sporting "Cancer Research UK" on their shirts this year....
> 
> ....so support Cancer Research in the UK and buy a Brechin top rather than a RadioShack cycling top!


Nah. Last I heard Lance was claiming 5% royalties on any use of the word 'cancer'.


----------



## Noodley (30 Jul 2010)

Here's a link for anyone wanting to annoy Lance:
http://www.footballkit.co.uk/myclub/show_product_info.php?pid=1102


You can even get a number on the back....


----------



## Chrisz (30 Jul 2010)

LOL @ this thread! Lots of fuss simply because some guys on the tour wore unofficial clothing?? No big deal - lets face it, Cipollini was always at it and blatantly didn't give a stuff for the fines he often got 







(Duh! Stupid me - it's not about the incident - it's all about Lance Armstrong isn't it!)


----------



## mangaman (30 Jul 2010)

Noodley said:


> Here's a link for anyone wanting to annoy Lance:
> http://www.footballk...fo.php?pid=1102
> 
> 
> You can even get a number on the back....



Tempting Noodles...

It does make me want to follow Brechin this year though - I didn't know they were a fan-owned club. That's cool.

(although I doubt I'll make it to any of their games).

What division are they in


----------



## Noodley (30 Jul 2010)

mangaman said:


> What division are they in




Scottish 2nd Division, where they will be put to the sword this year by the mighty Forfar Athletic!  

Their past Chairman, David Will, died last year of cancer so they are supporting Cancer Research UK on their shirts. David Will was also Vice President of FIFA and his funeral attracted the top names in world football to the town...
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/news/newsid=1106906.html

Apart from the local rivalry I have always liked Brechin and played for their youth team many many years ago.


----------



## mangaman (30 Jul 2010)

Noodley said:


> Scottish 2nd Division, where they will be put to the sword this year by the mighty Forfar Athletic!
> 
> Their past Chairman, David Will, died last year of cancer so they are supporting Cancer Research UK on their shirts. David Will was also Vice President of FIFA and his funeral attracted the top names in world football to the town...
> http://www.fifa.com/...id=1106906.html
> ...



Thanks - you are now officially my hero - I've never met anyone who played for a football team. (And don't say - it was only Brechin youth team - you must have been a decent player). Any of the old magic still there?

Thanks for the link as well - very impressive and interesting - local football is so much more interesting than who Man City will sign next. 

I love Soccer Saturday on Sky with results flying in and the great Geoff Stelling excitedly saying "and there's been a 3rd goal at Stranraear - and it's McClean with his 2nd of the game and his 8th of the season. And did you know Mclean has never been on the losing side when scoring twice".

I develop favourites in all divisions and have lived all over Britain with my job - so always supported the local team as my 2nd team (to the mighty Naarwich City). I therefore look out for about 10 teams' results.

I'll need to decide who to support between Forfar and Brechin now.  

Brechin have the cancer thing - so I'll have to go with them. Sorry. 

I'll start a thread when the season starts if I remember. Forfar vs Brechin


----------



## Noodley (21 Aug 2010)

mangaman said:


> Forfar vs Brechin



First game between the two teams today ended in an honourable 1-1 draw. Forfar remain unbeaten this season and remain top of the league on goal difference


----------

