West Ham in League with the Royal Family

With West Ham winning the game from a controversial goal who can blame the hacks for making some obvious jokes at the expense of conspiracy theory nutter Al-Fayed.

The Independent found it 'hard to comprehend' why the referee allowed Solano's goal and felt that it was 'worthy of a conspiracy theory.' The paper felt the first half was 'uninspiring' but were impressed in the second half by Mark Noble's 'quality'.

The Guardian felt that West Ham 'dominated from the start'. They felt that Fulham 'huffed and puffed but produced nothing.' The Guardian has a lot of fun at the expense of Fulham fans. Obviously they are learning a lot about conspiracies from their owner,

"A non-penalty, a non-foul, a non-throw. There were conspiracies everywhere and referee Webb ... was at the heart of them ... a Diomansy Kamara shot hit Anton Ferdinand in the area - 'Penalty!' they screamed. A Bullard shot was diverted - 'Penalty!' they screamed again."

The Daily Mail felt that it was a 'dire game at Craven Cottage'. They felt that West Ham 'had the better chances' whilst (like The Guardian) they weren't impressed by the 'huffing and puffing' from Fulham. Mark Noble 'was the pick of West Ham's players.'

The Daily Telegraph felt that it was a 'scruffy game won with a scruffy goal.' The Telegraph say that only two players emerged with any real credit from the game. Bullard for Fulham and Noble for West Ham. They felt that Cole should have had a hat-trick.

The Times wasn't impressed and felt 'it was a deeply dismal, mediocre game with few moments of illumination.' West Ham made more chances, Noble 'showed pace and initiative' but in the end they say it was 'a game of often stupefying dullness.'

Not for the Happy Hammers though! Nor for Prince Philip, who with the aide of M16, managed to take out Fulham goalkeeper Niemi seconds before he reached the ball ahead of Nolberto Solano.