JohnMc

I don't disagree with you, however I don't have much clout. The SLO might have a bit more, and of course the club have considerable clout, so for me they should be driving this. We suffer whilst others posture.

Any argument about not needing BBC Scotland misses the rather large point that almost everyone resident in the UK has already paid for it. I, personally, am very annoyed I can’t get coverage of my side. Radio Scotland on Sunday for example seemed to be relying on the Rangers Twitter feed for updates, Rob McLean reading them out verbatim in the 1st half. That’s not acceptable, they should have someone at the match providing regular updates if not live commentary on one of their many frequencies. The club should be making representations about this. That every other top flight club in Scotland has someone attending their matches should be raised regularly by the club. Over 85% of all radio is listened too either through a DAB radio, a smartphone or AM/FM. Radio is listened too by people doing something else. They are driving, working, walking the dog etc and radio accompanies them. Of the total ‘audio’ market ‘live radio’ has 74%. There is still a large public demand for ‘live’ radio broadcasts, whether that's music, news, weather or sport. Radio Scotland has a public remit to provide this. Following live football by any means other than radio involves the individual doing nothing else but that. That clearly won’t suit a large number of people. As such live sport on the radio is important. What I’m not entirely sure about is do the BBC have exclusive rights to radio commentary in Scotland? If they do then we as supporters as well as the club should be making much more noise about this. We’ve a right to expect equal coverage of our club. There are clearly a number of obstacles to this currently. As this excellent thread demonstrates there is a clear antipathy towards Rangers and their supporters from Pacific Quay. The origins of this go back a couple of decades. Back then radio coverage was split between between commercial stations like Radio Clyde, Forth, Northsound and BBC Radio Scotland. The unwritten rule and belief was commercial broadcasters focussed on the ‘big clubs’ in their area. Economics being the driver for this, the bigger clubs had more supporters and generated more interest, more listeners and so more revenue through advertising. In actual fact this was a bit unfair on Radio Clyde who covered all the Greater Glasgow sides as well as Junior football too. With the commercial stations focussing on the ‘big’ clubs BBC Radio Scotland gained the reputation for giving smaller, provincial clubs as much focus as the big city clubs. Again, I’m not convinced this was accurate, but that was the belief. The introduction of ‘Off The Ball’, the Cosgrove/Cowan programme helped cement this belief. They very publicly ridiculed Rangers and Celtic in particular, something that didn’t happen on the commercial stations, much to the delight of supporters of other sides. Fair enough. That was 20 years ago, things have changed now. For a start most commercial radio stations in Scotland are no longer locally owned or managed. Programming is done centrally from an air-conditioned penthouse office in central London, playlists are compiled with more than a nod and a wink to certain record companies and local presenters are replaced by ‘networked’ shows from out of town business parks in the English Midlands. In short Radio Clyde is now about as local to Glasgow as Netflix. The same thing has happened to almost all local radio stations in Scotland. Covering local sport is not a priority anymore as it takes resources they’d rather not invest in. Which leaves BBC Radio Scotland in an almost monopoly situation when it comes to local sport. That becomes an issue when the overall culture of the sport’s department is ‘Rangers and Celtic are evil’. To their credit Celtic have managed to address this with BBC Scotland whilst we’ve just exacerbated it. Whatever anyone thinks of Jim Traynor he knows the Scottish sport’s media. He worked for Radio Scotland for years. He appeared alongside Chris Mcloughlin, Richard Gordon and co, he knows them well. On top of that he’s a former broadsheet and tabloid journalist who was himself on the receiving end of a ban. He was once kicked out of a Rangers press conference and banned from Ibrox by Souness who described him as a “little socialist”, in what I think was meant as an insult. Did that change Traynor’s writing? Did Traynor’s career suffer because of this? No, of course it didn’t, he went on to be the Sport’s Editor of the best selling paper in the country and regular on the radio show with the largest audience; Radio Scotland. So why does he think imposing any kind of restrictions on McLoughlin now helps things? The other thing you see from this thread is of course the antipathy many Rangers supporters now have towards the BBC. Many think the station is biased against Rangers and its supporters and want nothing to do with it. Being apparently hard on the BBC isn’t unpopular with many supporters. That’s why I’ve always felt this is simply a PR stunt to get an active, vocal body of supporters ‘onside’. Fine, the support are onside. Any questioning of King and the board over the summer has been put to one side as the Gerrard juggernaut gains momentum and golden, sunlit valleys of the future appear on the horizon. Removing Graham Speirs press credentials doesn’t impede any Rangers supporter’s ability to enjoy Rangers. However, the spat with the BBC does. BBC Radio Scotland massively over-reacted to McLoughlin’s credentials being revoked. It’s no hardship to send another reporter but they’ve chosen to ban Rangers instead. It’s all petty dick-waving between the BBC Scotland team and Traynor. The only losers, as ever, are supporters. It’s fairly clear Rangers aren’t too bothered about this and clearly the BBC aren’t either. Getting no access to Gerrard isn’t ideal for them but it’s not hurt them yet. In the meantime I, and many tens of thousands of supporters, endure sub-standard radio coverage of my side. I don’t know if the Rangers SLO should be taking this up with the club and the BBC or not. Someone should be though. The BBC aren’t a commercial body so there is no financial incentive for them to sort this, Rangers don’t suffer financially either, their remuneration from the coverage is pre-agreed. I’d estimate that about 10% of the population in Scotland are Rangers supporters, as only 50,000 can attend a match that’s 450,000 people who want to follow what’s happening in the match as well as the supporters of whoever Rangers are playing that day. That’s a lot of people being denied coverage currently being afforded to supporters of every other topflight side. That’s surely against the spirit of the BBC’s charter. The argument over whether we’d get fair and even treatment from BBC journalists can’t be had whilst we’re denied the same coverage as everyone else. Whatever your views on the BBC we are entitled to that. The club and the BBC should be doing what they can to achieve this.

Really Pete? To compare him to Kluivert is the ultimate strawman, why not compare him to the thousands of other footballers who didn't get drunk and beat up a woman instead? Everyone may well do things they later regret but there are consequences and just because the guy might be a decent player his actions shouldn't be overlooked. He shouldn't be anywhere near Rangers, we should have standards of decency that exclude wife-beaters from wearing our jersey. We should absolutely look at everyone's history and if it turns out they're dangerous fuckwits we shouldn't sign them. To suggest everyone has a history that's anywhere close to this low-lifes is total bollocks Pete.

I love 'The Old Lady of Edmiston Drive' as a title. It's a tradition that grand, extraordinary buildings, ships and so forth have female gender. Archibald Leach (slightly different spelling) was also the movie star Cary Grant's real name.

The club deserve criticism for the handling of this though. Whatever happened over the course of the season or in the dressing room that day, whatever supposedly bad influences Miller and Wallace have been, fining them was a mistake. Miller had literally weeks left on his contract, if the club wanted him out then send him home, tell him to train on his own and that's it dealt with. Likewise with Wallace, if his time at the club has come to an end then tell him that, tell him he's being put on the transfer list and stripped of the captaincy. That's what happens in football, it's a brutal business at times but the players know that and get on with it. By fining them all we've done is save some money, that we might end up having to pay them back anyway, created two embittered players who, whether we like it or not, do have influence and friends in the dressing room and the media, and created the circumstances where this will now drag on for weeks if not months. Fining players makes sense if you're keeping them. It's a punishment they have to take on the chin to get back into the fold but fining them and then releasing them is a poor strategy. The players have nothing to lose by appealing. For those who say the players didn't show Murty respect and undermined him and that can't be tolerated they should remember that our club's Chairman threw Murty under a bus just days before that game, undermining his authority and position far more seriously than any player could have.

I wasn't being entirely serious, I mean who wants rattles back? I think complaining about the type of music or the volume of music being played just about anywhere is simply a sign of getting old. As I'm now reaching the age of average life expectancy for large parts of of Glasgow I'm reluctant to publicly admit to my doddering state by complaining about music. I mean it would be great if we didn't need signing sections and ultras and choreographed displays and everyone stayed until the end and the East Enclosure spontaneously burst into song 20 minutes into the first half and kept it up all game, but that's not how it works these days, it seems. So I'm a bit meh about the music, shrugging my shoulders and accepting that shit changes whether I want it too or not. But let's be clear one one thing Gonzo, you're fuckin way out of line on Madness, all sorts of wrong on that one sir.

We should bring battle rattles too. And the maximum wage, and Scarlet Fever.

We could get hung up on age instead of looking at capability. McAuley is experienced and has been playing at a good level for the last few years, way higher than SPFL. With his background he shouldn't have any problem 'fitting in' and having an experienced centre half sounds like a smart move to me. If he can guide young McCrorie like Davie Weir did to Danny Wilson once upon a time he'll be a good bit of business. The squad needs experience, we're very light on that now, a handful of older senior pros is essential.

I see no quotes from Tav himself in the article, what does he say about it? I've got a collie cross from Cardonald and know nothing about American Bulldogs and why you might cut their ears. Why is it done, is it like tail docking? That was banned but then reversed in Scotland last year. From the outside it seems cruel but I'd like to understand why it's done and what Tav has to say about it first.

Arfield, Murphy, Candieas, Dorrans, Windass, Jack, Docherty, McCrorie (he's a midfielder, not a defender in my opinion), Holt, Halliday, Rossiter and Barjonas. We've got options in midfield and I agree it can always be strengthened I'm just not sure McGeough does that significantly. Plus, he left us for them, so it's a hard no from me ;-)

For Maclennan to have survived for so long in the dirty, dirty world of newspapers shows he's not only canny but also a skilled political operator. It's impossible to have worked in newspaper management in the last decade and not have annoyed journalists. Cost cutting and managed decline have been the order of the day, that's never popular on the 'shop floor'. For MacLennan to have thrived he must have met his targets and pleased his bosses. Desmond and O'Brien are both serious businessmen and nobody's fools, they wouldn't have agreed to his employment if they didn't think he'd bring value to the business but also be looking out for their interests, whatever they might be. So for anyone to state publicly that MacLennan isn't there to do their bidding is naive in the extreme. MacLennan is an employee with a long track record of delivering what his bosses want. The only way there isn't a conflict of interest with MacLennan is if Celtic and every other Scottish club's directors want the same thing, and at this moment in time I doubt that very much.

I'm not sure about McGeough, when you leave us to join Celtic that for me closes the door on you forever. He's had a good couple of seasons but midfield is arguably the one area we don't need to strengthen currently.

I'm not sticking up for Pena but Rafeal Scheidt was part of a scam that Celtic, and a few other clubs, fell for. The Brazil manager and a number of football agents realised that a player who was a full Brazilian international commanded a premium transfer fee and salary in Europe. Plus without international recognition it was hard to get a work permit for some countries. So Wanderlay Luxemburgo, the Brazil manager, and I imagine a number of officials at the Brazilian FA, arranged copious amounts of meaningless friendlies where players never normally good enough to be picked for Brazil got capped. These players were then touted to gullible European sides as full Brazilian internationals (which they technically were) who fell for the rouse and signed them up, often on lucrative contracts and decent transfer fees. I'm sure the players got some of it but Luxemburgo and the agents grew fat off this until it was rumbled after a few years. I'm surprised Celtic haven't demanded an independent enquiry into it. Pena looks a shadow of the player he must have been at some point in his career, whatever his failings today he earned his caps the correct way.

RI still think there's a player in Ryan Hardie, somewhere.

He's one of these young players for who an awful lot is expected, whether that'll ever be fulfilled is another matter. He's already a Wales international although I suspect that was fast-tracked as England were trying to persuade him to represent them. He scored the winner in his second match for Wales too. He needs to start playing regular first team football that's for sure.

Really Craig? You don't spend much time in Scotland these days, do you. Sticking a big Union flag on the front of a Rangers top would be seen by many, many people as making a political statement.

I can remember when they not only got the Broomloan but also the West Enclosure and a wee bit of the Main Stand. Things change, because we've decided to do this now doesn't mean it'll be the case forever. I could see a time when both clubs stop away allocations completely if the cost of policing and stewarding continues to rise. In ten years time things might be very different, you cut your cloth accordingly.

That's unfortunate, I'm sorry. Hopefully something can be worked out, I've no idea of the logistics or availability for other suitable parts of the ground.

For the record I have never worn a green tie. The oranje cup final was superb. I'd no intention of wearing an oranje top to it, dressing up for cup finals wasn't really me, all felt a bit too tartan army for my tastes. I was driving down Dumbarton Road to pick up my mate listening to Cosgrove and Cowans on the tranny. Cosgrove was spitting feathers about the oranje thing, inferring anyone who took part was clearly a bigot and it shouldn't be allowed. I promptly stopped at a wee Partick clothes shop and bought an orange t-shirt. A few pints later I'd bought an orange wig too. It was a great day and the stadium looked immense. A great after party in The Nile that night too.

How's that work Forlan? Forlan's concern aside having more Rangers supporters in the ground at every match and having more season ticket holders sounds like a good move to me. I could care less how Celtic feel about this or what they do in return.

I'm not sure where to begin with this. I mean it's a very bad idea for any Rangers player to sit among Celtic fans at any match, they are putting themselves in a position of danger if nothing else. Whilst he's not the most high profile player he was clearly still recognised and, had the match gone differently, some of their support might not have been in a friendly mood. Secondly he can't be that naive. He's from here, he 'gets it', he was brought up with it. You could maybe excuse a foreign player or maybe an English one, where this type of thing might happen without comment. But this is Glasgow, and rightly or wrongly you don't do that here. A Rangers player, any Rangers player, watching a cup final Rangers aren't in, from the Celtic end, must rank as a stupid thing to do. If he was an ex-Motherwell player and in the Motherwell end then okay, that could be explained. Not the Celtic end though, that's unforgivable in my book. Lastly with MO'H and his background he should be particularly sensitive to this type of thing. We pay his wages, and whatever frustrations he might have with the club there's a new manager coming in and everyone get's a fresh start. Why blow it before Gerrard even sees you train? I think the best I can come up with is to agree with Frankie, MO'H is clearly not very bright.

Do you live in Glasgow BD? I've always assumed you do, I'm not sure why though. Personally I don't know how it's possible to live in Greater Glasgow and not know, or know of, lots of independence supporting Rangers fans. I mean half the people I know openly support the SNP or the concept of independence now. Some of the are nominal supporters who never go to games and watch infrequently on TV or catch games on radio, some are lapsed attenders due to family/work/cost commitments and some are guys who Rangers still play a big part in their lives. I thought you'd be hanging around with Jim McColl BD, that not the kind of circles you move in!

I'd wager there are more Rangers supporters who vote SNP than attend church on a regular basis far less go on Orange Walks. I don't know what kind of echo chamber some people on here live in. I personally know a a lot of Rangers supporters who voted 'Yes'. Some are convinced, card carrying nationalists who believe an independent Scotland will create a wealthier/fairer/better (delete as appropriate) society, some had never voted before in their lives and got caught up in the emotional argument and others who wavered one way or the other right through the campaign before being swayed by something or other at the death. I voted 'No' but if they held another referendum this year I'm not sure I'd vote the same way. My politics change as events unfold and society changes. I've voted for five different parties so far in my life, I'm loyal to none of them. Three years in Northern Ireland convinced me that unbending loyalty to any institution or ideal leaves you ripe to be exploited and taken for granted. Outside of my immediate family pretty much the only constant in my life has been Rangers, everything else is available.

It's a poor excuse from the club, or its insurers, whoever is actually defending the action. We should do the right thing here because it's the right thing to do.

The big question though is why were we wearing red socks? That's us a goal down before we even start as everyone knows.