THE only thing we need to know right now

Was it the correct decision to name the West Bridgford stand, The John Robertson Stand?


  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
Red Krayola said:
Back-to-back European Cups didn’t just create happy memories for one generation

Pope John XXIII: But it did though. It's happy memories only to those who were there.
You're misrepresenting what I said.... this is the full line:

Back-to-back European Cups didn’t just create happy memories for one generation — they fundamentally changed the stature and identity of Nottingham Forest as a football club.

I don't see how you can dispute this.
 
I actually think your post unintentionally explains exactly why the stand names make sense.

You keep framing it as “sentimental memories” of older fans, but the club isn’t honouring that era because a particular generation enjoyed it more. It’s honouring it because that group achieved something so extraordinary that it fundamentally eclipses everything else in Forest’s history.

You mention Billy Walker, Pearce, the 1959 side etc — all absolutely worthy figures in our history. But none of them transformed the global stature of the club in the way Clough, Taylor and Robertson did. That isn’t disrespectful, it’s just reality.

And the irony is you say “nothing else will ever matter as much” as though that’s somehow unfair. But football clubs don’t artificially flatten their history to make every era feel equally important. Some achievements are bigger than others. That’s true at every club.

Real Madrid don’t apologise for constantly centring the Di Stéfano era. Liverpool don’t avoid celebrating Paisley and Shankly in case younger fans feel excluded. Manchester United’s identity is overwhelmingly shaped by Busby and Ferguson.

The reason Forest’s stand names gravitate toward 77–80 is because that period wasn’t just “a good team” — it was the defining achievement of the club itself.

And honestly, I think you slightly undermine your own argument with the Panthers example. You’re basically admitting there’s a difference between personally sentimental memories and objectively historic achievements. You felt more emotionally connected to the recent win because you were there — but that doesn’t make it more important historically.
Very good summary.

Everyone in Liverpool pays homage to Shankley and Paisley, young and old, because they fully understand their achievements and the circumstances behind those achievements.

It is probably hard to imagine now, but Liverpool were in a huge mess when Shankley took over - 1959, plumbing the depths of what was then division 2.

He not only built a great team, he rebuilt the club and created an institution.

Paisley, one of Shankley's acolytes, built on his work and turned them into one of the most feared clubs in World football.

Look at United and the Busby Babes; very few of Uniteds support base will have been around to remember those days but you speak to any United fan about their history and that team will be one of the first things they mention.

History is part of the very fabric of all clubs and is something to be cherished.
 
Apologies for taking this sentence by sentence to an extent
I actually think your post unintentionally explains exactly why the stand names make sense.

You keep framing it as “sentimental memories” of older fans, but the club isn’t honouring that era because a particular generation enjoyed it more. It’s honouring it because that group achieved something so extraordinary that it fundamentally eclipses everything else in Forest’s history.
I disagree that this is why they have done it

I think they are catering to your generation of fans again.

Robertson has died and the club know it will go down well with a significant section. They also have the experience with Taylor and his family and the campaign to name a stand after him.

I don't disagree about the scale of how extraordinary it was, but I think as much as anything this is seen as an open goal for the club in fan relations

Maybe that's a good thing, but the popular thing isn't always the right thing.

You mention Billy Walker, Pearce, the 1959 side etc — all absolutely worthy figures in our history. But none of them transformed the global stature of the club in the way Clough, Taylor and Robertson did. That isn’t disrespectful, it’s just reality.
And that era has been comprehensively and completely honoured. It's in everything. 3 stands out of four now.

But our club is over 160 years old. All our focus is on 4 years of it. The same manager was actually more successful than we have ever been at any other time 10 years later, but we don't even celebrate that.

Stop and reflect a minute. An FA Cup in 1959 was about the height of what it was possible to win.

We already have a fan on here completely dismissing 157 years of our history because only those four years matter.

Are you sure you don't give a shit about McKinley, Walker and co more because you werent there?

And the irony is you say “nothing else will ever matter as much” as though that’s somehow unfair. But football clubs don’t artificially flatten their history to make every era feel equally important. Some achievements are bigger than others. That’s true at every club.
Yes, they are

But that is where you have some balance.

We don't define the entire 20th century by WWII; we acknowledge the key role it played in the century but we don't study that 6 years to the exclusion of the other 94- or maybe some people do?

Yet at Forest, this is more or less exactly what we do. We don't have any balance, even for the wider and longer term achievements or the manager from that same era.

My example, Stuart Pearce, was a player of that same Clough era - just the bit we never talk about. He won 4 trophies and was robbed of a 5th- very close to what Robertson won- and because of Liverpool he only had the chance to play for us in Europe in his penultimate season.

People forget that there are some absolutely brilliant players in that later era who were robbed of the chance to repeat some of those European feats.

When we see the pre game video, how much of it is from the 77-80 era, how much of it is in black and white, and how much of it is from 87-91? This video is typical of what I am talking about


90% of it is from that same era

A couple of goals in black and white, at least one from Storey-Moore. 2 goals by Pearce. A spattering of other 80s goals. 2 I think by Collymore, one by Earnshaw.

Fans from the 70s, fans from the 70s, fans from the 2020s, fans from the 70s.

It's a perfectly fine video - but it just shows the scale of the bias I am talking about. We won 2 cups in the late 80s- nothing
Real Madrid don’t apologise for constantly centring the Di Stéfano era.
Because they don't. It's one part of their history and treated as such

Liverpool don’t avoid celebrating Paisley and Shankly in case younger fans feel excluded.
That's a really disingenuous statement

Firstly, NO ONE has said we should avoid celebrating 77-80

Liverpool celebrate a very wide variety of eras, including ones their current younger fans will remember

And no one has said anything about "younger fans feeling excluded". That just comes across as an older guy parroting Daily Mail headlines having a go at younger people they know nothing about for "participation awards" and "hurt feelings".

Manchester United’s identity is overwhelmingly shaped by Busby and Ferguson.
Two successful eras, the latter of which most fans will remember and have been there for.

The reason Forest’s stand names gravitate toward 77–80 is because that period wasn’t just “a good team” — it was the defining achievement of the club itself.
I think this is the fundamental difference between myself and many of the people here

You say that you don't believe that those 4 years alone matter.

Yet here you are saying exactly that.

161 years of history but just four of them, which you happened to be there for, matter

I agree they matter, a great deal. But I also think that this club has done a lot of worthy things in it's history before, since and probably will again

You say it's the defining moment.

Do you, in your life, have just one defining moment? Just one week or month or year that really matters or gives it meaning? I hope not!


And honestly, I think you slightly undermine your own argument with the Panthers example. You’re basically admitting there’s a difference between personally sentimental memories and objectively historic achievements. You felt more emotionally connected to the recent win because you were there — but that doesn’t make it more important historically.
I am not weighing up "historical importance"

I am saying that a club belongs to it's fans- all of them.

I will never see Forest in a more weighty or important moment than you have. That's a fact.

But the club is mine as much as it is yours, and it is an 18 year olds as much as mine. It is there to entertain us all, to connect us to our local area, and to other local people.

That's why all our personal histories have importance. Not more importance or the same importance. But more than "3% of the pre match video" importance

I have spent my whole Forest supporting life paying homage to the late 70s, a bit of homage to the 90s and other eras would be nice
 
My example, Stuart Pearce, was a player of that same Clough era - just the bit we never talk about. He won 4 trophies and was robbed of a 5th- very close to what Robertson won- and because of Liverpool he only had the chance to play for us in Europe in his penultimate season.


Nowhere fucking near what Robertson won in both quantity and prestige.
 
My example, Stuart Pearce, was a player of that same Clough era - just the bit we never talk about. He won 4 trophies and was robbed of a 5th- very close to what Robertson won- and because of Liverpool he only had the chance to play for us in Europe in his penultimate season.


Nowhere fucking near what Robertson won in both quantity and prestige.
Stuart Pearce was England captain and he really meant something to Forest fans of that era.
Truly a man worth celebrating.
Comparing 'achievements' in a team sport is always going to be deceptive.
 
Stuart Pearce was England captain and he really meant something to Forest fans of that era.
Truly a man worth celebrating.
Comparing 'achievements' in a team sport is always going to be deceptive.
Psycho will always be a Forest hero, but people shouldn't distort facts to support their argument.
 
I will leave this here for anyone who wants to talk about ‘loyalty’ and football attendances in the late 70s and early 80s…

 
I will leave this here for anyone who wants to talk about ‘loyalty’ and football attendances in the late 70s and early 80s…

I literally said that there were wider social factors behind that
 
Stuart Pearce is NOT and never will be Mr Nottingham Forest, he had a comendable time with us but his loyalty was to his wallet, and will never be held in the same respect as MR Robertson.

He also shagged a girl i was interested in From Ilkeston so fuck Stewart Pearce!

The FA cup comparison is lame, many clubs can have a good run and or fluke a cup, what we did in the late 70s was unparalleled, even today and unfortunately for the future will never be bettered by us.

Its not just Forest fans, the world took note of it, backpacking across Asia in the 80s wearing my Forest shirt i had little kids in rural remote villages running up to me in with a ball screaming Breaan Cloff, thats how big a deal it was and recognizing the best player of the era is the right thing to do.

As for your ice hockey, no sod cares!
"He also shagged a girl i was interested in From Ilkeston so fuck Stewart Pearce!"

That sounds like one hell of a Ménage à Trois

You will most probably get honorary membership to the Clique with those kind of antics.
 
And yet on the back of that you raised the issue of loyalty by suggesting that people who hadn’t seen those years were possibly more loyal than those who had.
And as much I don't like the fact, I have to agree with Stenroach, Pearce wasn't loyal to us in the end.