Rick Roberts

21 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Their coverage is not editorially fair as they do not cover Rangers in the same way as other teams and they have admitted that.

 

The journalist in question is not banned from Ibrox. He can still attend games by buying a ticket.

 

How can the absence of one single journalist "severely restrict" reporting? There are plenty of other journalists. What would happen if he was ill?

 

The journalist in question has changed roles since his press credentials were removed, so why is the BBC's ban still in place?

 

If the BBC can return to Ibrox and provide commentary then why can't all other aspects be provided as well? Why continue to treat Rangers differently?

It seems like an open goal to me. I don't know why club doesn't just jump on it. There's nothing to lose with them anyway.

Here's my latest reply from the BBC complaints w.r.t. them being bangers. Editorially fair is the latest party line. 

1 hour ago, buster. said:

I appreciate that may be costly but how much do we want this sorted.

Exactly. Its a business that has a turnover towards £50m. Existing on brand and image. Board members recently put up £11m of their own money.

That's a huge investment to have tarnished on an almost daily basis by a couple of silly buggers at the BBC. I would expect to see it protected as such.

35 minutes ago, Bill said:

There seems to be a sad and widespread misunderstanding on here of Vanguardbears and the efforts they have made over recent years but that's no excuse for the active attempts to belittle and undermine their activities when directed at the likes of the BBC. Frankly, it shows a level of prejudice and ignorance that the Green Brigade would be proud of. 

This feels like the type of occasion where fan groups should be getting behind each other. For the common good.

Anything to bring attention has to be good.

A few big names ex/players at the front would be welcome. 

Obviously keep it clean and to the point. 

This is good. And welcome. It should be a regular feature. 

Surely Rangers, the club, has the clout to have this picked up by a rival (or just fair) broadcaster? To sit and go through all of the incidents.

And then the next step. Discuss the why this is happening and being allowed to happen?

Thanks guys.

Hopefully it captures the madness that's being allowed. Cant help but think we'll look back on it and ask how was that even allowed to happen? 

1 hour ago, buster. said:

What you need is access, software and a level of ability.

A reasonably professional job that could produce a utube video that focussed on the worst examples.

 

Perhaps the club could do something towards it but without the need to take any credit.

 

 

The BBC watch thread on this site is as good an example of what is required for "incidents" and other stuff as any. It's that simple. Yet you seldom see it.

3 hours ago, buster. said:

If someone had the time and clips to hand, a compilation video of incidents from the same time period that could/should have led to the citing of Celtic players would be useful company for the info above.

 

I saw a thread or two on twitter. There's plenty of them but nothing definitive. In fact, given the way the BBC deal with highlights there's probably twice as many that we'll never even hear about.

Griffiths banging another players head on the ground and Brown flicking his boot in someones face spring to mind, on top of the one's commonly referenced.

Here's what annoys me. The club must have someone looking at and collecting this info and data, surely? It'd be easy enough for them to get something together and distribute it. 

I never realised this but that Stefan Bienkowski guy on twitter is now a BBC employee. Famous for the now defunct lead balloon twopointone football website.

His tweet below shows his credentials for working at pacific quay.

This is terrifying stuff - Are BBC scotland just hiring random celtic fans off the internet now?

Out of interest, does anyone know if freedom of information requests cover recruitment for departments?

13 minutes ago, Whosthedado said:

Yeah I didnt think the midfield worked the other night.  Jack didn't seem to know where he was supposed to be playing and Kent seemed to have a free role to just roam about. Even when Candeias came on there was no width in the team

Noticed that before with Kent playing. The others seem to sit back and expect him to make the break through.

Is Goldson fit again?

I was going to have a go at Halliday during last game, but then realised he was at least showing for the ball and the other players were taking the easy pass to him, so not really his fault. Killie wasn't his kind of game so Livi probably wont be either.

I like the tactics shows. Its a level of insight and service above the main stream. Even after a defeat its a worthwhile listen.

12 minutes ago, pete said:

Absolutely fantastic peice Rick. I sometimes struggle to read right through some long pieces but this kept my interest from start to finish.

 

One spelling mistake:

On social media most of the press pack praised Rangers performance, endorsed the result and rated Benton's performance as good (which in Scottish refereeing terms is stratospheric). Newspapers, tabloids included, said similar, at least initially. One good example is that Graham Spiers tweeted Beaton was 'terrific'.

Thanks Pete.

Tomorrows Daily Record "Death threats for Benton as well now" :-) 

16 minutes ago, stewarty said:

In the interests of balance, in terms of the building narrative around the quality of refereeing; we should also highlight our own club's stance in calling out Collum's poor performance, as well as the suggestion after the first game of the season from Gerrard about decisions going against us.  Levein, Lennon, McInnes et al, have all made their own comments.

 

That said, my own take here is that the primary issue that enables all of these spats to build, and for pressure to continue to build on referees, is the fundamental flaws in the SFA's compliance process.  Rather than build confidence in the application of the laws of the game, it fundamentally undermines them.  As @Rick Roberts points out, unless every game is reviewed for potential compliance incidents in full and without favour to any media agenda, then there will always be decisions that go unpunished which will aggrieve one or both sides.

 

But where do we go from here?  Is the answer VAR so that the referee can check individual decisions during the games so that there is minimal need for the overlapping compliance officer review? Possibly, but are all clubs and the SFA willing to pay for it when there is little hard cash around?  And what then happens when interpretations of VAR incidents also generate their own contentious levels of debate?

 

 

I think you're right on referencing Gerrards criticisms. The article was growing by that stage so i never covered it.

Likewise, i considered adding in equivalents (or dismissing what Spiers considers to be equivalents) but decided that would be a whole article by itself. 

Rocksport discussed Refs last night and they mentioned fans and responsibilities, they mentioned players and managers reactions. But they totally missed he medias behaviour and responsibilities. Which is the main factor in everything. They decide what will be news or sensational more than the actual incidents. I predict they'll trumpet in celtic as the saviours of Scottish football when they opt to chip in for VAR. I also predict they'll slaughter VAR when we beat them next. 

Thanks Buster. 

As with a lot of these east-end hysterics the story, opinions and timelines get washed away. If anyone goes back to find out about it they only really have the BBC or daily record articles to go on, which are less than half the story. Unfortunately in months or years people wont remember the truth, only Tom English's version of it. 

Bill Young at Rocksport has recently commented on the situation with the BBC. He says he'll discuss it in one of their shows, sometime soon i guess. Give him your opinion on twitter. 

I'd like to see us use some of Lawwells soundbites against them. Call their bluff on the away tickets and issue snide statement on the safety of their fans.

Sadly,i dont think we have the media influence to drive that home and get a good laugh at them.

11 minutes ago, buster. said:

You'd have to ask, what was the dressing room dynamic so early into Pedro's reign and was this one of the reasons why Pedro was so reluctant to give Miller an extension ?

 

-----------------------

 

I'm sure the Windass interview will be well worth a watch.

Yeah, its all a bit confusing. Was Miller just too much trouble or a real asset that was badly handled?

Doesnt really matter now i guess.  

What was the story with Miller - was it constant under-mining of Murty? Or just the one incident?

Seemed strange to see him so close to King then turfed out down the road. 

8 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

Frankie,

 

Sectarianism is an industry. And it is an industry which resides on a one way street. This is never critically discussed in the media because editorial control is in the hands of those who can associate with the perpetually put upon, the perpetually offended and their promoted plight ad nauseam as a result. Balance is not deemed to be important enough for media owners to sanction a different agenda, otherwise things would be different. And that is before you factor mainstream politicking along socio-religious lines into it.

 

The game is rigged.

100%. It is a game. We've ended up on the wrong side of it and need to rig it back (and not apologise whilst we're at it). 

Caught some of the first half on BBC scotland MW. 

They had 30 mins to fill before the bheasts kicked off at St Johnstone.

In fairness they actually weren't bad on Rangers after Rapid and appeared to be trying to be complimentary. Prehaps theyve finailly realised Gerrards is building something real?

One thing that was clear, they didn't have a clue what was happening at Ibrox. Goal reports were from the live feed text. Its an unbelievable situation. No doubt they mobilised dozens of PQ out to Perth or over to Salzburg but they couldn't cover the biggest match of the weekend. 

2 hours ago, Frankie said:

There were a few but the add-ons fairly inaudible to me watching on TV.

 

Annoyingly a drinks container was thrown on at their goalscorer so that may be fined.

David Edgar had said they'd reported negatively on all previous ties this season. Which was why they were accompanied by UEFA delegate this time. I wonder what they were reporting back on specifically?

I recall tims making a big fuss about the "tune" of TBB being banned. I'd imagine FARE would try and hear alternative lyrics to some others too.

Super Rangers briefly early doors then fairly well behaved. I notice they sung Super Rapid which gave me a chuckle.

I thought both home and away support were giving it a good go. Loud and raucous. A proper atmosphere, I couldn't understand a word they were saying, which kind of puts the absurdity of some of these "singing" debates into context i.e. you really need to go looking to be offended - and we know who does.

To give him any benefit of doubt that comment sounds like those of someone that doesn't follow football and gets their news through the filter of our terrible tabloid media. I dont believe he's that daft or naive though.

This was the guy that done many of Charles Greens puff pieces.  No harm in being fooled once but i get the feeling White probably stands by that work and thinks CG is a good guy.

Heard him recently interviewing Sullivan at West Ham in a "hard-hitting" interview. It was pathetic. He just did not get the fans concerns at all or dig on any of the questions they put to him. 

Dont know if he does but I'd guess he's the type of guy that backs Mike Ashley as well. 

38 minutes ago, StuGers said:

I’m not surprised, however, the timing of this is strange. Why now George?

Not sure if its got any relevance, but i couldn't see Charles Green making any worthwhile mileage of the suggestion. Only recently club stable enough to act?

Possibly hindsight on other issues from Peat?