Pacific Quay Musings?

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

The evidence of why this was done will come out in the years to come, and it will almost certainly benefit celtic. Quite how and what is unclear for now, but a sly sleekit deal has been done as Haughey has never given away chunky money for nothing in his life and wont start now.

[pete 2,499]

David Edgar said on a pod that the rumours are that BBC Scotland have been told to get it sorted out by the end of the year. Not long to go now.

[Gonzo79 13,581]

I'm quite surprised the English BBC haven't been a bit more demanding than that.

 

It's not as if there's anyone at PQ with the intellectual capacity to successfully defend their boycott or their blatant bias.

 

 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,473]

3 hours ago, pete said:

David Edgar said on a pod that the rumours are that BBC Scotland have been told to get it sorted out by the end of the year. Not long to go now.

If that is the case, stand your ground Rangers. Keep that lot at PQ squirming

[StuGers 477]

Rangers should actually go out their way to invite the non-Scottish BBC to Ibrox. It will highlight the fact we’ve not actually banned them and will also highlight the absolute ridiculousness of the Pacific Quay CSC.

[Scott7 5,132]

I went to the website for BBC Sport, Scottish Football for thr Highland League results my usual supplier having failed. Headline was Rangers beat 10 man Dundee. Right enough, they were Miller lite for a whole eleven minutes.

 

The Broch beat the Clach btw.

[Franc Ergs 1,349]

2 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

I went to the website for BBC Sport, Scottish Football for thr Highland League results my usual supplier having failed. Headline was Rangers beat 10 man Dundee. Right enough, they were Miller lite for a whole eleven minutes.

 

The Broch beat the Clach btw.

?.

[Scott7 5,132]

54 minutes ago, Franc Ergs said:

?.

Hard luck, the Lily Whites.

[26th of foot 5,827]

Yesterday's coverage of our match against Dundee was more of what has become the PQ pattern.

 

Transparency was the key word.

 

DrStu' believes transparency will be achieved if the Review/Disciplinary Committee is made up of former players, as well as former Refs. He specifically stated the name of a fellow PQ employee who, "also wants an emancipated Scotland" to be involved. He went on to say that Michael Stewart would only willing to do it, if anonymity was guaranteed. He would rather avoid the social media storm that would accompany such decisions. Tick one for preferred prejudice.

 

Big Dick hosted a twenty minute discussion on the same subject matter. Aberdeen are unhappy, Steve Clarke is perturbed, Neil Lennon has an interest, and everyone talked about kicking out and flicking a kick. Everyone was Wullie Miller, Billy Dodds and his EBT, Chick Young, Scott McDonald, and Alan Preston. Both Morelos and McGregor are guilty as sin and anyone else carded is provided with mitigation, including Neil Lennon aeroplaning. In the interests of 'transparency', we should know the make up of these three men panels. There was agreement that there is one rule for one club and another for everyone else. Tick two and three for preferred prejudice.

 

It's interesting, we were told consistently that there was no need to know the identities of those disciplining our club, it wouldn't help the process. When McCoist questioned anonymity in the interests of transparency, it was Beeb Scotland that led the charge in ridicule. Oh, and if you are a license fee paying Bear, do not have the temerity to ask BBC Scotland which employee will be this week's FARE representative in Villareal?  Further, Scott McDonald has some neck. Last season, he was correctly red carded for a flat of the boot lunging assault at a Rangers player and he appeared on Sportsound twice and on Sportscene once during the immediate week following his dismissal, to plead his case. That's right Scott, one rule for one ....... who else has such generous access? 

 

Objective appreciation occurs when all factors germane to the subject are thoroughly tested. Advantages and disadvantages are listed on each component. You arrive at a conclusion that can be advanced. A preferred conclusion that forces the equation to fit is corrupted absolutely. If you omit a constant factor, then your conclusion is false. The culmination of this twenty minute discussion saw Alan Preston in the final twenty seconds say, "Just because Rangers turned up with a Lawyer to bamboozle the committee doesn't make it right, kicking out at a fellow pro' compared with Neil Lennon aeroplaning on to the pitch, what's more dangerous"? Ninety-nine per cent of a discussion refusing to mention the crucial factor of a club participating in the process, fully armed; is omitted. Now, if one of Alan the Agent's players was the subject of an appeal and he was supported by a Solicitor/QC, would Alan the Agent utilise the word, "bamboozle"?

 

To coverage of our game, Chico was 'monitoring' events. He began his team news from Ibrox by this introduction, "today's bottom half of the table fixture between Rangers and Dundee ......". Big Dick before the end of the show read out the SPFL table, "Hearts leading with a perfect fifteen points, Celtic and Livingston on ten points, and Hibs, St Johnston, and Rangers on eight points". Apparently, we are sixth; well, at least our next league fixture is top half of the table against the Saints one place above. Ah, that old adage about being accurate ensures objectivity?

 

 

 

   

 

[buster. 4,808]

Heard some of it yesterday and 26th has got them well sussed with very good detail.