Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

And we of course have a dozen or so articles whipped up on that topic after half a handful of games ... ahem ... nope. We didn't.

 

Honestly, that OP's article for all its "impartial reporting of facts" is complete and utter dross to hurl a negative story into our faces - after three wins in a row. And it does not give us anything new or unexpected. WE knew what would come, we - and they - predicted what would and now they make a story of it. A story that obviously leaves out some smart facts about Friday and Monday nights too. You do indeed wonder that once we've got our financial "problems" straight what sort of story will they try to whip up. These trolls IMHO will milk our plight - and primarily our plight - till the cow is dead ... and anyone reading it should be aware of that. For after that, it is back to Dolly milk in that great realm of the Scottish football world. Then again, they can still sing from the "sectarian hymnsheet".

 

 

Ooooh the f*&king irony!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When an article is saying what many Rangers fans are saying then I fail to see how it is trolling. It IS worthy of mention and discussion.

 

It has been discussed in advance - not least by certain quarters on here about half a dozen times. It whips up figures from last season (very different circumstances*) et al to underline that negative stuff and simply forgot to mention the off-field ST stand-off between certain sections of the support and the board, King's "intervention" etc.. The way they present this is essentially on par with those on here going ballistic after the Hearts game and were predicting horror and dispair for the rest of the season. Three games on they have a go at crowd figures - as the team does not exactly comply to their predictions. No wonder that they were soon out here too and poring salt into the wound. As pathetic as shooting sitting ducks ... and that is what the board remains for the time being. That article IMHO was meant to throw more dirt in our direction and some will stick. With each such article the product Rangers FC will be downgraded a little further ... and hence the rightful question (deemed irrelevant straight away) regarding the Yahoos' unreported and uncommented** dwindling crowd figures these last two seasons? Or any other top tier team's for that matter.

 

*We'd been in a real mess had there been a similar stand-off same time last year. For the time being, it is what it is and the board will have to deal with 25k (or whatever) ST money and will have to bridge the gap and hope for "high" crowds on the day. That is what we predicted, that is what has come to pass and I for one see only certain folk (as per usual) taken their delighted, if expected stance on matters. Sooner or later we'll fill Ibrox again.

 

** Is it irrelevant with regard to us? For the club a such, yes. When it comes to press standards and reports on us? Very much so!

 

Figures ... when we were "flying" and having quality in our side, Ibrox hosted Killie and St. Johnstone at the start of the season 2010. We attracted 45,739 and 46.109 respectively. Would you expect that same figure one division lower against the bottom team? Or matter of fact, what did you expect? Would 4 or 5k more had stopped people from writing the article and projecting financial doom. Ifs, buts and maybes again, when all know that in football business things can change rather dramatically. I did not read the name Ashley in that article either ... so all that is in there is negative stuff. If I was of the paranoid ilk, I might actually note that the Yahoos managed to lose their game at the weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been discussed in advance - not least by certain quarters on here about half a dozen times. It whips up figures from last season (very different circumstances*) et al to underline that negative stuff and simply forgot to mention the off-field ST stand-off between certain sections of the support and the board, King's "intervention" etc.. The way they present this is essentially on par with those on here going ballistic after the Hearts game and were predicting horror and dispair for the rest of the season. Three games on they have a go at crowd figures - as the team does not exactly comply to their predictions. No wonder that they were soon out here too and poring salt into the wound. As pathetic as shooting sitting ducks ... and that is what the board remains for the time being. That article IMHO was meant to throw more dirt in our direction and some will stick. With each such article the product Rangers FC will be downgraded a little further ... and hence the rightful question (deemed irrelevant straight away) regarding the Yahoos' unreported and uncommented** dwindling crowd figures these last two seasons? Or any other top tier team's for that matter.

 

*We'd been in a real mess had there been a similar stand-off same time last year. For the time being, it is what it is and the board will have to deal with 25k (or whatever) ST money and will have to bridge the gap and hope for "high" crowds on the day. That is what we predicted, that is what has come to pass and I for one see only certain folk (as per usual) taken their delighted, if expected stance on matters. Sooner or later we'll fill Ibrox again.

 

** Is it irrelevant with regard to us? For the club a such, yes. When it comes to press standards and reports on us? Very much so!

 

Figures ... when we were "flying" and having quality in our side, Ibrox hosted Killie and St. Johnstone at the start of the season 2010. We attracted 45,739 and 46.109 respectively. Would you expect that same figure one division lower against the bottom team? Or matter of fact, what did you expect? Would 4 or 5k more had stopped people from writing the article and projecting financial doom. Ifs, buts and maybes again, when all know that in football business things can change rather dramatically. I did not read the name Ashley in that article either ... so all that is in there is negative stuff. If I was of the paranoid ilk, I might actually note that the Yahoos managed to lose their game at the weekend.

Remind me what the figures were for last season and the season before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been discussed in advance - not least by certain quarters on here about half a dozen times.

 

It may have been speculated upon in the past, but when it actually happens then it's worthy of note.

 

Are you expecting them to ignore it because it's been discussed on Gersnet at least a half dozen times?

 

The lowest crowds for 28 years should not be ignored. The article appears to be written from a neutral viewpoint to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be a very peculiar spectrum of individuals who wouldn't want this discussed.

 

Maybe you read my replies again and find that "articles" and "discussion" is fine, once it is made on a level playing field. Neither the article is, nor some of the discussion. And that is indeed peculiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you read my replies again and find that "articles" and "discussion" is fine, once it is made on a level playing field. Neither the article is, nor some of the discussion. And that is indeed peculiar.

 

your attempt to belittle the article and stifle discussion of it is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.