The new issue of WSC with Man U players saluting Gary Lineker on the cover

[Patrick Thistle]

Arrived yesterday. No envelope issues.

Not read the Wrexham article yet. Expecting a takedown but I might be surprised.

[ChrisJ]

Not read the Wrexham article yet. Expecting a takedown but I might be surprised.

No takedown, sadly. The occasional side eye, perhaps. I enjoyed the match report though. Also enjoyed Nef and Berba being trolled in the TV section.

[Tony C]

Jay Rayner’s comment “the secret to a happy life is finding a level of hypocrisy you can tolerate”, quoted in the ‘Above board’ article, is one I’ll certainly be using again.

[Gangster Octopus]

No envelope issues.

[Jobi1]

Poor Collin Martin once again missing out on a mention in the piece on Jakub Jankto. He came out in professional men's football several years before the likes of Carvalho and Daniels, at the time the only out pro anywhere in the world and the only out male athlete active in the major sports in the US, but appears to have been completely forgotten about. His (wonderfully inclusive) San Diego Loyal have had a solid start to this season in the second tier over there, so shout out to him.

Wry smile at the Luton board loving article after my justification for voting for them in the hated clubs poll the other day...

[Satchmo Distel]

Can someone scan and paste the cover?

[ursus arctos]

Click to embiggen

https://twitter.com/wsc_magazine/status/1638884592634699776?s=61&t=xvOireV8JOIS_CpbTtDBow]

[Nurse Duckett]

No envelope issues, but does anyone else's copy have:

• pages 9~16 and pages 33~40 missing?
• pages 17~32 repeated?

I'm hoping the lovely Ffion at WSC will sort me out a new copy, as she did when my issue 428 went missing.

[MarkF]

John Watson?

[Lymeswold Snork]

Is Ray Dexter of Repton around to clear up a mystery in his letter?

Maybe I'm innocent, or particularly perverted, but I don't think many sexual preferences are actually illegal these days, so I can't guess what the Burton fan was being accused of. The usual formula would, I imagine, be "Who's the - - in the - ?", which would narrow the epithet down somewhat (oh, just thought of one possibility which can be abbreviated from three syllables to two); but then "chinos" has an excess syllable anyway, unless the Oxford fans were exercising poetic licence by referring to them simply as "jeans" (or are chinos, by default, shorts these days?). I suppose you could re-cast it as "Who's the chino-wearing - ?", but that doesn't help much.

The best I can come up with is to choose two out of "flagellation", "necrophilia" and "bestiality", followed by "you're just flogging a dead horse"; but that would omit the necessary third element of the joke as well as any criticism of his fashion sense.

I expect it will be obvious once somebody tells me.

[JoeysToe]

Is Ray Dexter of Repton around to clear up a mystery in his letter?

Maybe I'm innocent, or particularly perverted, but I don't think many sexual preferences are actually illegal these days, so I can't guess what the Burton fan was being accused of. The usual formula would, I imagine, be "Who's the - - in the - ?", which would narrow the epithet down somewhat (oh, just thought of one possibility which can be abbreviated from three syllables to two); but then "chinos" has an excess syllable anyway, unless the Oxford fans were exercising poetic licence by referring to them simply as "jeans" (or are chinos, by default, shorts these days?). I suppose you could re-cast it as "Who's the chino-wearing - ?", but that doesn't help much.

The best I can come up with is to choose two out of "flagellation", "necrophilia" and "bestiality", followed by "you're just flogging a dead horse"; but that would omit the necessary third element of the joke as well as any criticism of his fashion sense.

I expect it will be obvious once somebody tells me.

I was in the away end, but my WSC hasn't turned up yet so I'm currently unaware of the contents or context of the letter. Once it does I may be able to enlighten you. It was a toxic day out and I can confirm the chanting wasn't very civilised.

[ursus arctos]

It's an entertaining letter

[Felicity, I guess so]

This photo taken in Oberhausen Hauptbahnhof this afternoon.
Obviously I bought 11 Freunde, with that cover



image widget

[Felicity, I guess so]

[Felicity, I guess so]

I now see it's last months, but was still nice to spot it out and about

[delicatemoth]

Spent quite a while poring over that wonderful photograph of Rangers' 1964 Cup celebrations, and realised that it really does look as old as pictures from the 1920s did when I was a kid. This is an obvious point, but I actually felt it rather than just knowing it.

[Nocturnal Submission]

Is Ray Dexter of Repton around to clear up a mystery in his letter?

Maybe I'm innocent, or particularly perverted, but I don't think many sexual preferences are actually illegal these days, so I can't guess what the Burton fan was being accused of. The usual formula would, I imagine, be "Who's the - - in the - ?", which would narrow the epithet down somewhat (oh, just thought of one possibility which can be abbreviated from three syllables to two); but then "chinos" has an excess syllable anyway, unless the Oxford fans were exercising poetic licence by referring to them simply as "jeans" (or are chinos, by default, shorts these days?). I suppose you could re-cast it as "Who's the chino-wearing - ?", but that doesn't help much.

The best I can come up with is to choose two out of "flagellation", "necrophilia" and "bestiality", followed by "you're just flogging a dead horse"; but that would omit the necessary third element of the joke as well as any criticism of his fashion sense.

I expect it will be obvious once somebody tells me.

I assumed that the missing insult was "paedo."

[Nocturnal Submission]

Meanwhile WOMwill be delighted to discover that his hometown gets not just a mention but a picture in When Saturday Comes:

[WOM]

That is indeed an arcane and pleasing bit of trivial referencing. I've driven past the stadium my entire life, and will do so this evening, in fact.

[Cal Alamein]

Thoroughly enjoyed the "Private Audience" article re: in 1972 the writer talks of his grandfather taking his uncle to Elland Road to see the FA Cup and running into a number of the players. An event that would be nigh but impossible in 2023.


Thinking of the most hated teams thread that is now at the final stage, I was able to see the Viking Stavanger, our local team, play Leeds and Rangers, two teams totally hated by OTF.

I had a great impression from both Leeds, and Rangers players were equally courteous Players from both teams were extremely cordial, signed autographs after the game and I got into an extended conversation w/ Alex McDonald who I did not know his name until I looked at my two-page spread of Rangers team pic in SHOOT.

I get the hatred, just that as an 11 yr. old both teams were cool as shit w/ me.


Dig the early video cassette recorder!

[Nurse Duckett]

No envelope issues, but does anyone else's copy have:

• pages 9~16 and pages 33~40 missing?
• pages 17~32 repeated?

I'm hoping the lovely Ffion at WSC will sort me out a new copy, as she did when my issue 428 went missing.

Just me then. Anyway, for the record, Ffion sent me a perfect replacement within a couple of days of asking.

[danielmak]

Arrived to Chicago today. No envelope issues and no missing pages. I only had time to read the letters.

[MrLeam]

I only had time to read the letters.

When are you planning to read the numbers?