Big Jaws

I have come to the conclusion that the threads OP is completely incoherent as its tittle points to the Rangers accounts being due within the next 10 days with the body text linking the company overseeing the audit to some nefarious behaviours where they were fined 5 years ago due to a lack of expertise, that both they themselves and the ICAS were aware of, in a specific sector (insurance). I was prepared to cut the OP some slack as every poster has their own posting style. I wasn't quite sure what the poster might suspect and so I thought it prudent to ask only to be met with evasive reply. What follows next is quite remarkable the OP then distances them-self from their own inferences by saying that they only posted two facts and that they had not linked the two when it is absolutely clear that they had. The thread records this in the very first post. I don't think I've encountered a poster whom is quite as mendacious nor as obstreperous as this poster. Thats saying something as I've been posting on BBS/BBL's and forums such as SA for over 20 odd years. In all that time I've never called for a poster to be R/O'd but this one for me is in a very special minority of one.

This isn't about me, its not my thread its yours! You linked the Rangers accounts to a fine CD received 5 years ago for a completely unrelated matter and I asked you what it is you think is going on? All you've done is imply rather than divulge what you actually think. When specifically asked by a Rangers supporter (me) on a Rangers forum (here) what you think, you then reply with the above meretricious diatribe which I find is quite frankly disingenuous and obtuse.

What exactly is the nature of this post i.e what inferences are you attempting to draw from the above small fine, which ICAS themselves concede was due to lack of current knowledge in that particular sector, from 5 years ago?

It was before.

It needs to be raised and spoken about publicly. Rangers the club would be held in some sort of contempt, we'd be bringing the game into disrepute if we refused to take to the field we'd get fined and probably docked points. However the players do have a right to industrial action via the players union. If there is little evidence of the laws of the game being enforced as they should be when we do take to the field then it would be interesting/funny if they played until the ball goes out of play in our favour either a corner, goalkick, freekick or throw in and simply sit down and refuse to restart the play. It would probably result in the same actions on the part of the SFA/SPL but it would be a very definite player statement with regards to safety in the work place and also funny AF to boot.

No the second goal was fine Tav was lazy and didn't get out quick enough playing Moult onside. Alves was supposed to be the last man.

In principle I agree with you but we cant then say that it is inconsistent because ultimately it is consistently poor refereeing. To qualify that it is also necessary to point out that Moult also received a head knock that had drawn blood in yesterdays game. It could be argued that it wasn't as severe as that of Cardoso but the game should have been stopped regardless because it was a) A head injury and b) A blood injury. The referee in that particular case was approached by Moult with blood running down his face and yet seemed even at that to take very little notice. He more or less looked right through the player. In this case the level of incompetence could have endangered the players. Cardoso in my opinion was far more seriously injured than Moult but both were serious because at no point can we judge a player with an open wound to not be severely injured. In this respect the referee was consistent.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you are saying but by your own argument they are being consistent in that they are not applying the laws/rules.

I'm not sure you could call this fair Bill. [tweet]922135402982658048[/tweet]

I'm seeing that our players are getting abuse on their twitter feeds. Thats not on!

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I don't think we're far away either but I'm only one voice and the Rangers fans tend to make their minds up fairly quickly when faced with these types of decisions. What I am seeing is they have done that and the verdict is not good for Pedro.

He wont get any more time from the Rangers support... you can see twitter the same as I can Frankie and you know its already started irrespective of what we think.

Its not the games that is the issue we can accept that form sometimes dips Frankie. Its the big tests, he's failed them all. Thats whats unsustainable and the Rangers fans are where the pressure will come from. Just so we're clear I'm not for getting rid of him but the board will have no choice.

We didn't take our chances and that is an issue but the scoreline didn't reflect the game. Of course in these situations its all about winning because of that I think that the board will be under a lot of pressure and I think Pedro's job is seriously under threat now.

Motherwell have had 4 minutes in that first half and thats it. Its been all Rangers and Motherwell have kicked everything above the grass.

There is nothing wrong with being subjective or one-sided perse'. There is quite clearly an editorial line as far as Pedro is concerned, as in they, don't seem to like him. For me I just find the site a bit too tabloid for my tastes and the comments section is like reading the same on any tabloid site.

First of all I didn't presume anything other than that you are a Rangers supporter? After that it is simply my opinion based on my observations of many Rangers blogs, articles and fans forums including this one. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on whether the article is well written or not... from your perspective. However to negate its subject matter as unimportant or time unwisely spent in my opinion is a mistake because its not simply an ad hominem. Indeed the article centres around one of the main protagonist agitating against both Rangers fans and our club. However it focuses attention on the publication he writes for and his own personal comments through his twitter feed in addition to the articles he writes for that publication. I believe in freedom of speech but we shouldn't allow these people to spread their bile uncontested. Unlike yourself on this occasion I'm all for 'getting intae thum' when the situation presents itself as it did here. I'm sorry you don't agree that it was necessary to do that Steve but even at that I respect your position.

THE CLUB... THE BOARD... DAVE KING.... CLUB1872... WHOEVER... needs to make a statement! Pick any of those headers on any given day and you'll see them plastered across countless Rangers forums and blog spaces the internet over. I know I certainly see them written by Rangers fans on a regular basis. Then when any of the above does make a statement or stands up for the fans it seems we Rangers supporters would prefer a return to dignified silence. Why is that? Is it because we cant decide on the colour of shite between us or is it simply a reactionary response to the media constant sneering or ripping apart any official Club statement? The truth is its a bit of both but its mainly that we have unreasonable demands with regards to our Club. This is the 21st century and things work a little different here than what us old farts from 19 canteen are used to. Dignified silence is NOT an option here. There needs to be a counter to the constant attacks that our club and supporters receive in the Scottish main stream media. We cant do that via the methods we might have used in the past, as I said above, whenever that has been attempted anything said is immediate met with a wall of derision. What is the answer to this situation in this day and age? Well part of the answer to this issue is to use the internet and particularly things like, citizen or independent journalism, to promote a positive image and get whatever message out there to act as a counter point. I have no connexion to, nor do I write for TRO. However I do have experience using the, independent journalism aspect of the blog sphere to create a publication which does act as a counter voice to a hostile media. In that particular case which is far removed from this real world example, being set in an imaginary universe, the negative press and constant derision was no less real! DB highlighted in a post, via his translation of another language, just how words, and phrases are inserted into context, cackhandedly slipped into an article to be used by journalists to colour the argument and build resentment against us and our Club. That message is enforced and reinforced at every opportunity by this hostile media which has increased the frequency of attack consistently to a point where we as Rangers fans expect it every day. It is insidious and has crept into common conversation. There is no getting away from it. We cant afford to indulge in Ostrich moments where we can stand by and let it pass. It needs to be countered! What is it that you (the Rangers fan) want? What is more important than protecting the reputation of our community and the stature of our great club? I do not care one iota if there is a hint of personal vendetta in a piece of this nature. It should be personal because it IS personal and it should be personal to any Rangers supporter reading it. Its time to roll the sleeves up and get on with it. The club and board are distanced enough from this publication where they can let it operate here without the loss of face or dignity. Setting the agenda and countering these piss ants is what the remit of TRO is and it is doing exactly what it says on the tin!

It looks like a childish, we/I don't like you, piece initially. However its more subtle than that. What it is saying is that people do not agree with Jackson. It does that by discussing the Ratio. The way Twitter works is that to reply means to disagree because when a tweet is good,there are simple, elegant tools for expressing your appreciation via the like and re-tweet buttons. The Ratio in this case is as good a metric to dissect a writers credibility as any. That is what the articles aim is and treating it as some sort of journalists handbags at dawn is a mistake.

This guy is an absolute moron he's nearly a 30 year old man and and he's mouthing off like that at a boy who's just turned 21 ffs. And don't get me started on the inference in the article that Morelos is a dirty or nasty young player who can only battle.

A great result tonight, against team and manager I have a lot of respect for, a very difficult team to beat. Philosophical point.. Social media allows everyone to publish their immediate emotional response... thats all well and good but we need to be mindful bears... give it 10-15 mins in future when telling our opinions. A couple of bad passes doesn't make a dud its all just part of the game. Again great result for us tonight. WATP!

I take what you're saying on board however I dont think we've been poor Frankie. I think in spite of the 4-4-2 formation St's have played with 5 across the middle and one attacker in Cummings that we've dealt with fairly easily on the second ball. Their outside right has been busy both in attack and defence and I do not expect him to last the full 90. Our link up play to the wings, across the middle and to Morelos up front although, at times, slow has been nice to watch impressive even. St's hit and hope football might look dangerous but I think we've dealt with it. Looking forward to the second half and another goal from us!

Since Holt starts and Pena tends to get the hook in the second half it looks like young Barjonas might get a game after all.

Honestly I have no idea Pete.

Sorry for the thread necro but I just noticed this reply. I have to disagree with you there GS he was known as a bit of a practical joker etc and up for a laugh but I cant forr the life of me think where the hellraiser tag came from. Very rarely I seen him out in the town clubbing on either Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday which were my working nights back then if he was out it was a mid week on my nights off Monday or Wednesday etc. However if you were talking about McCoist, Neale Cooper or Andy Grey etc then that would be a different matter the least said about that the better tbh. The times where I did see Durrant in a bar in town he was generally very quiet and sat and supped a single drink for most of the night. I never seen him hammered or drunk not once. I will confess that we did see him a lot more after he was injured but even then he was always well behaved.