Jump to content

 

 

amms

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,807

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by amms

  1. amms
    I'd be astonished if there aren't a squadron of recruitment companies hunting and proffering candidates for the job. If Craig Whyte or Imran Ahmed doesn't own a headhunting business they've missed a trick.
  2. amms
    I'd a meeting with someone today who claimed the media arm of the club is in the process of being 'out-sourced'. I can't prove it but he's someone who might well be privy to that information. The term he used was asset stripping. He's not a Rangers fan either.
  3. amms
    Great piece Andy. I read a book recently written by an ex-undercover policeman who spent two years with Millwall's hooligan 'firm'. It's a rubbish book, poorly written and violence glorifying however one amusing bit was on a trip to Liverpool where the undercover policemen was lifted without having done anything wrong, given a kicking by the Liverpool polis who were unaware of his real identity then slung in cell. They were a little embarrassed when they found out. Indeed the one grain of value in the book was the treatment of football fans by various police forces throughout England and how it exacerbated situations. Still the reaction of Celtic to this hasn't been a surprise. 8 coppers were hospitalised, good luck claiming self-defence with that.
  4. amms
    How is it possible to get Bob Marley and Bobby McFerrin mixed up??! That alone should see him banned from the internet.
  5. amms
    Yeah, fair enough, you aren't saying that, I apologise. My error aside I strongly disagree with your article. Wanting to know who owns our club and exerts so much influence is the minimum all Rangers supporters should demand, if McColl and Murray(s) contacted BPH and co is hardly a surprise, indeed if they hadn't that would be bigger and more disturbing story. The factionalism and schisms in our support on this subject are staggering.
  6. amms
  7. amms
    Are you seriously arguing that the BBC haven't produced programmes of the quality and standards that match those of even a select number of commercial stations in the last 20 years? Well, if it's not the genre it's the quality then the BBC are in a league of their own in Natural History for example. The Life series, The Blue Planet and The Frozen Planet rival anything ever made in the history of television. Purrrrrrrrrr. Look, for the record I don't believe the BBC are beyond reproach, close to perfect or couldn't do better. I also believe their coverage of Rangers in recent years leaves a lot to be desired. However to allow that to cloud our view of the entire corporation is akin to the entire Rangers support being described as neanderthals because a small minority behave badly.
  8. amms
    I agree...
  9. amms
    What I'll never understand, ever, is why they care? What the fuck does it matter to a Dunfermline fan if we're a 'new' club or the 'same' club, seriously what the fuck? You'd think, with what they've been through they'd have bigger things to worry about. Why did we stay in Scotland.
  10. amms
    Great preview Frankie. Dunfermline have an experienced and able manager, this should be our stiffest test of the season. Still expect a victory though.
  11. amms
    Well if you're going to criticise the BBC's current output by comparing it to programmes made in the previous century then it is the issue. Also if you are going to criticise the BBC for not making NYPD Blue, The Sopranos and The Wire then you need to criticise every other TV station and production company in the world too. I'm not sure the BBC should be making gritty dramas based in post industrial America though. It's a bit like criticising Brazil for not capping Messi. If the BBC's remit was to only produce drama aimed at middle aged men then you might have point! Ah well, there's none so blind as those who will not see ;-)
  12. amms
    NYPD Blue began in 1993, The Sopranos in 99 and even The Wire was over a decade ago. Look, nobody has a monopoly on making good or bad programmes. I agree about the quality of some of HBO's productions but at the same time they don't make anything my mother or my children would enjoy, the BBC do. Programmes made by the BBC in the last 12 months that are generally considered international quality include - Dr Who Sherlock Luther Call The Midwife Have I Got News For You QI Episodes Out Numbered Top Gear Who Do You Think You Are The Story of The Jews Africa That's all fairly recent work. If you want to extend the timeline by 20 years you've got masses of programmes from Attenbourgh to Palin to Only Fools and Horses. Some of those programmes I like, some I don't and some I've never seen. As I said this is all very subjective. Anyway, it has mainly got fuck all to do with Rangers.
  13. amms
    As example of an high quality, impartial hard hitting documentary produced by the BBC, shown last night for the first time - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24765480 They aren't above criticism however to write off the entire corporation is simply hyperbole.
  14. amms
    Rab or someone said "Let BBC Scotland go out into the real business world for its revenue. Then it would be forced to produce accurate, impartial & properly researched broadcasts as it would dependent on viewing figures for revenue." as an example of what would happen if there was no licence fee. I was simply pointing out the commercial channels in this country don't currently. I think most people are ignorant of the commercial realities of TV and radio in this country. Well as I said I don't know what you like. The BBC does produce TV of the highest quality, and radio too, whether you enjoy it is very subjective. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate. HBO is very much the exception to the rule. It's not reliant on advertising either, it almost makes the case for the BBC. I find myself playing the role of BBC defender on here simply because I don't think withholding your licence fee or banning their sport's reporters is the best way to improve their coverage of Rangers. Messageboards are strange places sometimes.
  15. amms
    It's their big eyes mate, they draw you in, you've no defence against that.
  16. amms
    Read what I wrote again RPB, what I was saying was you find those on commercial stations. I don't know what you like RPB. I hear Dr Who is great although I've not seen it since Tom Baker was in it. I enjoyed both series of Luther and Episodes and I really enjoyed Coast, I never miss Gardener's World and my kids remain riveted to CeeBeebies and CBBC now too. HBO has produced some superb television, if only we lived in America it would relevant...
  17. amms
    To be clear Rab are you saying the entire BBC makes no programmes you enjoy, none? Desert Island Discs? From Our Own Correspondent? The Office? Match of the Day?Waybuloo?
  18. amms
    Seriously guys who do you think is going to withhold their licence fee, a couple of thousand people at most? You think that's going to make the slightest difference? All you'll end up with is a fine and seriously diminished credit rating. There are 63 million people in the UK, even if you could convince every Rangers supporter not to pay it you'd still barely make a dent in it. I love your naiveté with regards the quality of programme that would get produced if the BBC wasn't licence fee funded. You'll let me know when Sky and Radio Clyde start making accurate, impartial and properly researched documentaries now won't you. You seriously misunderstand how commercial TV and radio is funded and the type of programmes that are commissioned. If you want to change the media's behaviour, if you want to influence them in anyway you need to engage with them, anything else is simply posturing.
  19. amms
    What do you shout at the man who has everything?
  20. amms
    I think he means whoever is the 'away' side will have the disadvantage and a chip on their shoulder. For me this is an interesting development, the press being openly critical of Regan and admitting this gives Celtic a huge advantage. Whilst we've always known that I don't think i've seen it written in the press before.
  21. amms
    No, I'm not saying anything like that, the story was simply to illustrate the nature of the media. At no time have I said people shouldn't complain when there's something to complain about. At the same time that alone will only get us so far. I also think you overplay the BBC being in a vulnerable position just now.
  22. amms
    There's a technique in American politics called radical transparency. It basically means a politician admits publicly to all their misdemeanours, be they affairs, drug use, draft dodging, unpaid tax whatever. They do this before anyone ever finds out about them and they do it before they become well known. Studies have shown that counter-intuitively it actually helps to create trust with voters who believe the politician to be 'more honest' for having come clean without needing too. Consultants spent millions of dollars analysing voter behaviour before realising this. Prior to that politicians spent time, money and energy hiding their murky past and newspapers spent millions looking for it. Here's the thing, it's a game, all of it. The media dug into their back story because the hoped there would be something to find. You take that something and make it public then the media lose interest. It's not 'news' and that's the game they are in. They don't care about right or wrong, good or bad, deserving or undeserving, they care about filling space and airtime. It's a game and we can either play it or choose not to and complain when we keep losing. There is a reason why the Easedales for example have been largely left entirely alone by the Scottish media and it isn't because they've no skeletons in their cupboards. You won't change any innate institutional bias at BBC Scotland overnight, but you can begin the process of correcting falsehoods and imbalance by starting to take part. Although I disagreed with the analogy SA made up thread he was right in a way. If you go to war then you must be prepared to do what it takes to win and however unpalatable it might seem actually working with the people who control the news is the first step.
  23. amms
    I disagree, our issues with the BBC were manageable prior to the club going into administration, from then on they rapidly went down hill. That of course coincided with the club being unable to defend itself properly. If we could sort our shit out at boardroom level we could begin defending ourselves again. Dodds was fairy outspoken about EBTs and if they constituted cheating. He of course benefited from one. Of the BBC Scotland football summarisers three have a clear Rangers connection; Dodds, Ferguson and Craig Paterson. I can only think of Murdo MacLoed and Willie Miller (both boyhood bluenoses of course...) as other regular ex-players contributing. The recent introduction of Kris Boyd and Michael Stewart to the midweek shows also suggests it isn't completely Tim-central everyday. My issue on our tactics currently is that we can't win, we've no leverage here. Simply refusing to talk to the BBC doesn't stop them reporting on matches and events surrounding us, it simply means we don't get to put our side across. We can ban and complain all we like but it's not going to make a great deal of difference to them. We forget that despite our lowly position we are still a force in this country. If you want to get better or fairer press then give them stories. One of the reasons the media are loathe to criticise Jack Irvine is he keeps filling their airtime and pages for them. I think at times we've a basic misunderstanding of how the media work. In most cases they won't bite the hand that feeds them.
  24. amms
    Maybe someone told him it was full of paddy fields and he's misunderstood.
  25. amms
    I'm not sure about your analogies there SA, both Vietnam and Iraq were utter follies undertaken for idealistic and commercial reasons, they weren't about righting wrongs or fairness. This is. We might not be able to temper the behaviour of certain individuals but we can influence the whole discourse. We're not just now, our refusal to take part in means our voice is simply not heard at all. As the biggest and most important club in the country it's important we are represented and our voice is heard. An example of that was Chris Graham's appearances on STV, he was able to articulate how many Rangers supporters were feeling and denounce Speirs nonsense there and then. We're currently unable to do that on the BBC. I accept that the BBC have a way to go before they'll embrace balance like STV do but they aren't immune from criticism. It isn't for nothing that Kris Boyd is now a regular guest on BBC Scotland, whilst he's a Kilmarnock player again he's still very much seen a a Rangers man, likewise Derek Ferguson and Billy Dodds are regular contributors and both are readily identified with Rangers. If sensible, articulate and informed voices from the Rangers support and club became available to the BBC then we could begin the process of changing opinions and setting agendas. When our reaction to slander is to ban them then we only harm ourselves. The right of reply is what we should demand. Spence wouldn't stand a chance against some of our 'people'. Always remember the BBC belongs to us as much as anyone, it's almost our duty to become involved with it. PS I think you can expect a lawers letter from D'Art tomorrow for 'grouping' him with Andy and me!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.