JohnMc

Tom English has been one of the BBC's most outspoken critics of Dave King, actually seeming as if he was actively campaigning against Dave King being passed as 'fit & proper' by the SFA like the obsessed Celtic fans were doing. If that's not 'anti-Rangers', then I don't know what is, although it has to be said that we did have some of our own doing the same thing. Not many, but there were some, even on here.

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.

TE writes very well. He may support celtic - I don't know, nothing in his writing reveals anything - but he doesn't like Rangers. Strangely, he was at his most sympathetic when Rangers were at their lowest ebb with a second Administration looming.

 

His posture on the "ban" is laughable. Come to our match but not to our trough. What's hard to understand?

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.

Will McLaughlin report the arrests at every game he attends this season or just Rangers ones? I think this is where the problem lies

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.

Haha, I doubt either have a huge interest in football but are clearly happy to delegate responsibility to their staff who, IMO, are making editorial decisions which cause more harm than good. As such, these two people are ultimately responsible - biased or not.

 

As Richard Wilson said last night on Sportsound, I'd hope Mr MacQuarrie in particular aims to meet with Dave King or Stewart Roberston at the earliest opportunity as neither the BBC nor Rangers gain from this stand off.

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

Now this lovely woman is Head of Programmes and Service:

 

https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/donalda-mackinnon/64/2a2/21a

 

Though, IIRC, Ken MacQuarrie remains in overall charge:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/macquarrie_ken

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

There's a bit of a difference between someone being pro-Liverpool/anti-Man Utd and what we have been subjected to. It's gone beyond football with the whole sectarianism issue.

 

I don't think anyone has an issue with a pro-Celtic journalist like Ronnie Cully, for example, who could give biased match reports. It's more "sinister" (for lack of a better word) where it's not an on-field/performance related issue but they are actively trying to do harm to our club and its support.

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.

I think most people would agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there is a bit more to it.

 

What's being published about is us is not illegal - no slander or libel laws have been broken as far as I can see. But there is no doubt in my mind that there is a bias to their reporting - and surely it's reasonable to expect the BBC to treat all its mandatory customers even-handedly? Reports on incidents involving certain other clubs are nicely air-brushed; played down or hidden away. Reports on anything negative surrounding us however get a "warts and all" approach. To me, the story after the Hibs game just smacks of McLaughlin scrabbling for something bad to write about us to take the shine off a really good result. Am I being paranoid for thinking that?

 

Assuming it's not just me, how can you build a bridge with an organistaion like that? There's no cosying up to them and sadly, writing anti-rangers articles seems to be a sound strategy for any unscrupulous journalist to adopt. Whatever you lose in Rangers fans, you more than gain back in OCD haters.

 

I don't think the ban will stop the bias, but at least it lets the world know that we see these reporters as being biased.

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.

But BBC employees are not allowed to be bias.

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.

I think most people would agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there is a bit more to it.

 

What's being published about is us is not illegal - no slander or libel laws have been broken as far as I can see. But there is no doubt in my mind that there is a bias to their reporting - and surely it's reasonable to expect the BBC to treat all its mandatory customers even-handedly? Reports on incidents involving certain other clubs are nicely air-brushed; played down or hidden away. Reports on anything negative surrounding us however get a "warts and all" approach. To me, the story after the Hibs game just smacks of McLaughlin scrabbling for something bad to write about us to take the shine off a really good result. Am I being paranoid for thinking that?

 

Assuming it's not just me, how can you build a bridge with an organistaion like that? There's no cosying up to them and sadly, writing anti-rangers articles seems to be a sound strategy for any unscrupulous journalist to adopt. Whatever you lose in Rangers fans, you more than gain back in OCD haters.

 

I don't think the ban will stop the bias, but at least it lets the world know that we see these reporters as being biased.

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.

No journo has been banned. The two smart alecs just have to pay to get in and pay for their pie and a cup of tea at half time. Withdrawal of privilege is not a ban on reporting.

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.

Can you explain how the BBC 'rely on readers and audience numbers' when they get their guaranteed revenue via the outdated licence fee?

Removing pondlife mhedia from Ibrox who have a clear agenda against Rangers was long overdue.

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.

I was reading about Goodes at the weekend, it's amazing how a story about a player you've never heard of in a sport no one understands can go global. I absolutely agree with Germinal though this is the next 'logical' step if 'sectarian' chanting ever becomes commonplace again.

Lol, good shout!

 

Seriously though, I don't even see an issue. I'm pretty sure that Mark Warburton won't tolerate any players taking the piss and turning up at Murray Park late or hungover like PLG allegedly had to deal with. The players will be well aware of that too.

Did I not read that Warburton asked the players to make the rules for conduct? I

Maradona is one of the greatest players of all time but his career went downhill at quite a young age. I'm not sure how anyone can say it didn't do Gazza harm with a straight face. As rbr just said, Best retired at 27, though came back to play for much poorer teams. Regarding Law, I've no idea what quantities he drank but things were very different then with much less emphasis on fitness. All I can really find on Giggs is articles from a few years ago where he says he doesn't drink much anymore. There are of course going to be some players who still achieve a lot of success regardless of what they do.

Would that be the same Maradona who played in a World Cup Final aged 30? Are we using "young age" in the same way you use "very small"? :-) Alcohol wasn't an issue for Maradona until after he retired from playing, a penchant for cocaine and being kicked senseless by the most brutal defenders in world football every week were his main problems.

Yeah, I'm sure going out on the lash was a key part of Barcelona's preparation last season for the Champions League final .

 

Also:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/3540701.stm

Here we are again SBS where you dismiss words actually used for ones in your head and continue to argue against something that's self evident to almost everyone else. Lets be clear the photo that started this conversation wasn't taken the night before Rangers played the Champions League Final and it doesn't show anyone "out on the lash", but don't let that stop you throwing strawmen in as usual.

If abstinence from alcohol is so important why aren't Saudi Arabia world champions instead of Germany where drinking alcohol is a perfectly normal part of everyday life even for footballers? For every great player who had a drink problem I can throw two back who played at the highest level and knew when and how to have a drink and when not too. Brian Laudrup seemed to manage and the Danish view on alcohol is very similar to the UKs.

It's all immaterial anyway as nobody on this thread has suggested drinking to excess is desirable or sensible.

They're supposed to be athletes. If they applied themselves in the same way as Murray or Hoy, then they'd be so much fitter and successful in their careers. Scottish society has a drinking problem, but it should not then follow that our 'athletes' be given free reign to so as they please, or be given excuses. I don't accept that a so-called 'professional athlete' should be allowed to drink and eat as they please. If they are not applying themselves 100%, then they're amateurs.

Has anyone said they should be "allowed to drink and eat as they please"? Likewise "be given free reign to so as they please"? By all means criticise but criticise what's actually been said not something that no one thinks is right.

If you don't think there are rules in place regarding diets, fitness levels, rest and recuperation and what is acceptable and when, then you've not been paying attention. Professional footballer's lives are heavily regulated, even Rangers players. The suggestion that having a few beers will somehow makes them less professional or poorer players is ignorant nonsense. They aren't tennis players or cyclists. Those are largely individual sports, football is a team sport, the nuances are important. Team spirit and camaraderie are vital in team sport, the sort of single-minded focus required in tennis and track cycling simply isn't transferable to any team sport.

Not only will most continental footballers drink alcohol a surprising number of them smoke too. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a drink if it is done in the right way and at the right time. Drinking too much, too often, isn't just an issue for footballers it's an issue for Scottish society. I've no problem with them going out for a drink on a Saturday night after a match a full week before there next game, we need to be realistic about these things. They're footballers not monks, teaching them when and how to let their hair down is a much more realistic than expecting total abstinence.

If Allan played for Rangers and was agitating for a move away and was photographed enjoying himself with a group of players from the side trying to buy him just after they'd gubbed us I don't think I'd be too impressed. For all his apparent ability on the pitch I've never been very impressed by the decisions he makes off it.

Lets be honest, the bid is derisory. DUFC bid double a while ago. It's simply tapping up.

 

If Hibs sold SA and failed to replace him in time with an improvement, Stubbs and Dempster's credibility would be damaged.

 

There is still potential for civil war at Hibs also as long as Farmer etc remain in control. The transfer isn't going to happen unless it is on our terms. The media attack dogs can be utilised all you like but it still won't happen unless the price is right.

 

If he had two years on his contract, I'd say he was worth........ £900,000. (it would increase if his rehabilitation continued at same pace)

Currently I'd value him at around £600,000. (with only year on contract)

However, to a nearest rival, I'd be wanting £750,000 with a replacement ready to go.

 

With Cummings and Malonga up front, a mid of Fyvie, SA, Bartley, maybe mcGeouch, middle to front, I am quietly confident. These players have all improved. Defensive injuries cost us dear in the play offs. I'm not seeing anything to be worried about from ibrox or paisley and predict a Hibs championship win.

Teams sell players to rivals fairly regularly, Dundee Utd have been acting as feeder side to Celtic recently and whilst their support aren't too happy Thomson and McNamara seem to have ridden the storm. Dempster and Stubbs would too, particularly if they paint Allen as agitating for a move so the support blame him. For a guy with less than 12 months on his contract and who it seems won't be signing a new one I'm not sure Hibs will have a lot of choice but to sell, it's only a matter of when and to who. I'd guess the when will be the last possible day of the transfer window in an a attempt at brinksmanship, to who is a more interesting question. That'll come down to Allen in the end, he holds the power in this, not Hibs or Rangers. Realistically in Scotland only Celtic, Dundee Utd or Rangers could afford to buy him, I can't see him rejoining Utd so it might depend on whether Celtic don't want us to have him enough to bid more. Your best hope is someone down south fancies a gamble however it didn't work out too well there before so they'll be cautious.

Haud the bus- you said Shiels did better under McCall (which he did if I'm honest) and he was generally played much deeper during that period; often alongside Murdoch in a holding role. Even daft Tam Miller mentioned that last night.

 

Eustace hasn't signed but I suspect he will soon enough when fully fit. Murdoch is away with the under 20s as I assume his position at the club is safer than others due to his reasonable performances last season. Temps and McKay have more to prove which is why I think they've featured more in the last game or two but they didn't show much last night unfortunately so I doubt we'd be difficult to deal with if another club showed interested - which in itself may be unlikely.

 

I don't think ten midfielders is an unreasonable number to have in the squad but if we sign Eustace and Allan (I appreciate it is an if) then we have more than that which means two or three players from my list will most likely leave. Crawford, Templeton, McKay and Shiels are most likely from that list.

Yeah, good point about Shiels.

Isn't the problem with Eustace one of fitness? I've been out the loop a bit recently but so perhaps events have gone one without me noticing but I thought Eustace was recovering from a knee op and there was a doubt about his ability to recover.

Anyway, I'm only speculating, but as Templeton and McKay are the only natural 'wide' players in the squad (Aird I suppose too) I think we'll persevere with them, they're also both quite attack minded, I think that'll go in their favour. Who knows if they'll take that chance though. I also think Murdoch will have to prove it all again, I genuinely believe they all got a clean slate when Warburton arrived, that's benefited a player like McKay who was in the wilderness but hampered Murdoch who had become a first team regular.

Here are the midfielders we currently have with Allan possibly arriving also:

 

Law

Halliday

Holt

Eustace

Templeton

Shiels

Walsh

Thompson

Murdoch

Aird

McKay

Crawford

 

That gives us at least 12 players for 5 positions and I'm not convinced the manager will want to keep them all. Personally, I think Temps and McKay will have been starting games to try to prove to the manager they deserve to stay at the club. Last night didn't convince me either were good enough with Walsh better than McKay and Miller equally as mediocre as Templeton. I also don't see yesterday's starting XI being the same at 12.30pm on Saturday so one of (or possibly both) of Temps and McKay will drop out.

 

Once we inevitably sign Eustace, I suspect Halliday will move to the left sided position while Law and Holt (with Allan eventually) will share the other two attacking midfield roles. That leaves Thompson and Murdoch to fight it out for the berth beside Eustace. Now, it may be the manager might want to keep the likes of Temps, Shiels and McKay as back-up but I'm not sure any of these players will fancy that if they can get a move elsewhere.

 

I could be completely wrong on this but I don't see long term futures for them. They're not good enough but I certainly hope they prove me wrong if they do feature.

I'm not sure Shiels is a midfielder, I'm not sure he's a forward either mind. We lost Black, Hutton and Smith from midfield and have brought in Halliday, Thomson and Holt. Has Eustace signed yet? It doesn't seem that Murdoch or Crawford are being considered currently and Aird seems to be back-up right back now leaving a list of

Law

Halliday

Holt

Templeton

Shiels

Walsh

Thompson

Aird

McKay

Even if we do bring in Eustace there's five spaces to fill each week, I'm not sure a roster of 10 midfielders to fill them is that big. I'd be surprised if McKay or Templeton are going anywhere this season. Whether Warbuston can make players of McKay and Templeton I don't know, both have talent but I'm not sure how big their hearts are.

The final third was the main issue and I suspect that will be sorted. Allan and Holt look as if they'll come in along with another striker. Meanwhile, I'd expect Templeton, McKay and Shiels to leave if we can find them clubs.

Why Frankie? Templeton and McKay have been first picks so far and look to be getting a chance under Warburton, whether they'll take it is another matter of course. If he didn't fancy McKay he could have sent him to NI with the under 20s like he's done with Crawford and Murdoch. I'm not sure about Shiels, I've always felt there was a player in there trying to get out, if he can stay fit I could see him getting a chance, he looked much better under McCall last season.