JohnMc

I'll have the preview for Saturday ready tomorrow, will I open a thread or post it in here for inspection first? I don't think I've said anything that'll get the site into trouble, not much on the actual game either mind, but you knew that would be the case when you agreed to let me write it.

This is probably entirely unimportant but I'm curious, why is Green at Livingston police station rather than say Helen Street or another Glasgow station?

Aye maybe, he's hardly a first pick though, is he? Can't say I watch many of their games (although I surprisingly found myself glued to the radio on Tuesday night...) but I get the impression Forrest's career has stalled and it would be no surprise if he's playing for Barnsely or Dundee Utd this time next year. It might be I just simply struggle to give them credit for anything.

Whilst I take your point McKay has been playing first team football for the last couple of years, just not for us. He was at Morton who were a division higher than us at the time and the Raith Rovers who were in the same league as us. Ironically being away on loan might have been the best thing for him although I doubt very much that was a deliberate strategy.

Really? I can think of Aiden McGeady who broke through in 2004 and at a push Maloney who made his debut 14 years ago so it's not exactly a prolific production line of dribbling midgets they're running over there. Who am I missing?

To be fair to McGregor he's very complimentary to Warburton and Weir in today's papers. What can't have been an easy conversation seems to have been handled very well by both parties.

McGregor has a poor injury record and the intensity and pace we're playing at might just be beyond him physically. I can't say I wish him all the best if I'm honest, Hibs losing every week is a much more attractive prospect for me.

Allan signing for Celtic should come as no surprise to anyone who has spent 30 seconds studying his career. He has no grasp of the concept of loyalty and is clearly only motivated by money. Whatever we might all think of Dundee Utd his departure from there was very unimpressive. They'd nurtured and developed him and he repays them by bolting for the door the second he could. His choice of clubs to sign for further underlines that it's his wallet that thinks for him. Fulham, then an EPL side with no real record of developing young players, probably made him very wealthy however his career went into reverse and he eventually washes up playing trials in the Scottish Championship four years later. Again, whatever we might feel about Hibs, they gave him a contract and a platform and invested time and effort in getting his career back on track. He repays them by agitating for a move away after one year. He can hardly be homesick so it can only be about the money, again. Now I accept that professional footballers view football as a job, any love or emotion they might have felt is kicked out of them when they first sign an S Form. But even viewed as a job and a source of income only, Allan has made some bad career decisions. He should have stayed at Dundee Utd, become a first team regular, got 50 first team matches under his belt and learned his trade before moving to bigger and better things. If he wasn't bright enough to see that his agent or someone in his family should have been. So if Allan signs for Celtic I'll shed no tears. He might go on to become a legend for them but more likely if he does well he'll be agitating for a move to Burnley or Stoke in 18 months time. The issue in this for me is Celtic showing they can weaken us, or at least prevent us from strengthening, if they want too. It's a marker being thrown down, a statement of intent from their board. We should be flattered, they clearly see us as a rival again, be interesting to see what our strategy to deal with this is though.

I've met him a few times and even worked with him once. I found him to be professional, friendly and hard working. He is what he is though, a Glasgow comedian of a certain vintage, he's not everyone's cup of tea but he has his audience. As for the boardroom stuff I know that during administration he was active behind the scenes for Paul Murray, approaching business contacts, introducing people he knew who might have the ability and inclination to help the club at that time to Murray. Rangers is a big, big part of his life and he's never been afraid to speak about that, something that has probably been to the detriment of his career particularly in recent years. I'd also point out that Andy Cameron is 75 years old now, he invariably holds different views on things from people half his age. He'll no doubt be irrelevant to many of our support now, but not all. We're a broad church and we should cater for that.

I'll do one, how about Raith Rovers in September? You can donate my 'fee' to something worthwhile of your choosing.

If King wasn't a Glaswegian raised bluenose who had previously ploughed money into the club and was a known quantity to many and if the club hadn't been on its knees I've a feeling a lot more people would have been very concerned about someone with his history taking over the club. I'm delighted that Ashley's cabal has been marginalised, and I do think King genuinely want's what is best for the club, but the media would not be doing it's job if it didn't say 'hang about, how can someone with his record be seen as fit and proper?'.

From memory English went to the Scotsman where writing about rugby was important for their private school Edinburgh readers. Seeing as no one reads the Scotsman now and it can't actually afford to pay journalists anymore he left. I guess he's talking about football now because it makes up 90% of all sport coverage in Scotland. Anyway, as much as I disagree with bans (or removal of press privilege) the BBC's reaction to it is indefensible and he deserves criticised for that. Interestingly he was one of the few journalists willing to criticise McCoist when he was our manager, both for his salary and the teams he put out. McCoist took very little criticism from the media even when he was being pilloried on here and places like it.

I think there's an assumption that because he's Irish he must support Celtic. English is from Limerick and that's an unusual town and county by Republic of Ireland standards. For a start it's the only part of the Republic of Ireland where rugby is the top sport, and it's the top sport by miles. In Dublin and other parts of Ireland rugby is a minority sport played in schools in the more affluent areas, by private schools or by Protestant schools. Not in Limerick where it's played by everyone no matter their background. This is English's background, he's a rugby man to his boots and would far rather report on that than football. If he has any football allegiances they're to one of the big English sides like pretty much everyone else in Ireland.

It's funny but my favourite sport's journalists are both Irish. David Walsh at the Sunday Times but particularly Paul Kimmage who has an insight into professional sport very few journalists possess and a curious writing style I really enjoy. Like you I actually quite like English and have never quite understood why he attracts as much opprobrium from our support as he does. Great piece, hope it gets read further afield than this thread.

Where was that played, Dumbarton? What a nmae for a ground, who'd have thought you'd ever long for a name like Boghead to return. Some really poor defending on show there. Both their goals were really badly defended by us and our first was a shocker for them to lose. However, our second was a thing of beauty, I could watch it all day.

I've no idea, on previous experience probably not. McLaughlin is biased, he seems to dislike Rangers for reasons we can only guess at, I wouldn't expect even treatment from him. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make though.

Exactly, a BBC Sport employee urging sanity, they ain't all bad.

Neither of those two are people with an institutional bias against Rangers, I mean have you ever been in the Mishnish?

I agree to an extent. However an element of our own support are actively trying to harm our club and its support too and ultimately if no one had been arrested that report couldn't have been written. Mclaughlin can't choose that angle for his story if 'we' don't create the opportunity for him. I think it's fair to say McLaughlin will write about 'sectarian arrests' if they happen at our game, that's part of his bias and world outlook. Others at the BBC won't, that's where the balance comes in. In the end though 'we' keep giving people like McLaughlin the opportunity to write his rubbish, our anger should be directed at least equally in the direction of those among us who keep letting us down.

Bridge building, not always the easiest of tasks. For me it starts with recognising what mutual benefit do both parties have and taking it from there. The BBC require content, they've airwaves and websites to fill and as we're now hopefully moving into a less turbulent period off the park then something else has to be found to fill that. That means the focus will return to the pitch, the players and managers again. The BBC will want interviews with Warburton, with Weir, with Dave King with Lee Wallace with Tavernier and so on. As things stand they won't get them and that's not in the interests of BBC Scotland's sport output. An exclusive interview with Warburton will fill two whole programmes for them, one the interview and the following one analysing it. It also guarantees a big audience. These are carrots the club can dangle, there are deals that can be done on access and exclusivity for example. Then there's cultivating relationships with individual journalists and editors. Not everyone at the BBC is a Parkhead season ticket holder even if it seems like it at times. Figure out who these people are and begin the process of creating a convivial working relationship with them. It's how all business is done and particularly the PR business. Most journalists are under a lot of pressure (seriously, it's a deadline driven job and mostly under resourced these days too) and they won't look a gift horse in the mouth. They are open to relationship building if it makes their life easier. It won't happen overnight but figuring out how to achieve that shouldn't be beyond the wit of our club.

Well that's not really accurate. The BBC as an institution are supposed to be balanced in their output on "important" matters. If sport falls into this area is debatable but even then it doesn't matter if an individual shows bias as long as their is balance in their output. The BBC would argue that by employing sport's journalists like Richard Wilson and Kenny MacIntyre and pundits like like Stuart McCall and Billy Dodds they do show balance.

Okay, it's an interesting point you make. Bias exists in the media, it always has. Newspapers have traditionally taken a left or right wing editorial stance and so their output tends to reflect this. Increasingly TV is doing this too. In the end if a columnist wants to be known as being 'anti-Rangers' or pro-Celtic or indeed pro-Rangers then that's his business. It's not likely to make me want to read or listen to him but that's his prerogative. Alan Green, the BBC Five Live main commentator, has made a career out of being snubbed by Alex Ferguson. Ferguson refused to be interviewed by him and never relented. He did this because he perceived Green as bing a Liverpool supporter and of being biased against Man Utd. I think any fair minded person who has listened to Green over the years would agree with this. As a neutral in that particular fight it doesn't bother me but I can see why some Man U fans might be pissed off. I don't really have a major issue with someone like McLaughlin showing bias, and I believe he does, because that's his view on us and he's entitled to it. He's not the only voice at BBC Scotland though, there are others and some, in my opinion, aren't 'anti-Rangers' and their coverage of us is pretty fair I feel. This would be a bigger problem for me if I didn't have a choice of listening or reading, but I do. STV, for me, do very little right, but their Scottish football coverage is better than the BBCs, so they get my patronage. I'll reply on the bridge building later, I've ran out of time just now.

That's a fair point although it certainly makes reporting on a match at Ibrox considerably harder. I still think it's counter-productive but you are correct, they've not been 'banned' as such.

Well simply because programmes on the BBC stand or fall on their popularity with viewers/listeners. Audience figures are measured and used to judge whether a programme is a success or not and whether it will be commissioned again. Falling audience numbers will either lead to a programme not being re-commissioned or being revamped. Programmes such as news, current affairs and sport are more likely to be revamped and changed if audience numbers drop. Also the BBC’s Royal Commission is currently being reviewed as it is due for renewal in 2016, as such everything it does must be justified either as providing a public service or providing entertainment or education.

I'm uncomfortable about banning journalists. Apart from anything else I genuinely believe it's counter-productive although I also dislike any curtailing of reporting because we don't like what the person is saying. If someone writes or says something that is simply wrong then sue them. Libel and slander are crimes in this country, the laws to deal with these things exist. If the words aren't actually illegal, you/we simply don't agree with them then don't buy the paper, click on the website or listen to the programme. All of these media organisations, even the BBC, rely on readers and audience numbers. If these fall then changes happen. It continues to surprise me how many Rangers supporters continue to read or listen to Speirs. Just don't. Don't buy the Times and don't follow him on Twitter it's really not hard. As a columnist he's only employable if he's read. McLaughlin of course works for the BBC where audience figures aren't as important. However don't think for two minutes that they're ignored, they aren't. Now again we have the choice of simply not listening to BBC Scotland or reading their website, however I understand why licence fee payers would find that unfair. Again though you can still use the BBC, simply ignoring their Scottish football coverage. Ironically I do think BBC Scotland's coverage of Rangers and Scottish football has improved in the last 12 to 18 months. They do have some decent journalists and there's more balance to their output. I'd love to know what our PR strategy is now and what part banning two journalists from our press box plays in it. It won't stop either writing what they want after all. It has clearly played well with the gallery, perhaps that was all it's about; getting some fans onside. One other observation. A lot has been said about McLaughlin's article after the Hibs game and his reporting of arrests for 'sectarian' offences. Everything I've read though has been about criticising him for reporting this, I've yet to read anyone criticise the morons who got arrested. Now innocent until proved otherwise, I accept that, but if we're all being honest we know it still goes on, particularly among a section of the away support. Whether you agree with these stupid laws or not isn't relevant, until it disappears completely from our fanbase people like McLaughlin will be able to report it. As unpalatable as it is building bridges with the media is the only sensible PR strategy our club should have. Offering exclusives, access and help is a very powerful tool, all media organisations are understaffed and under pressure to fill airways and columns.