Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Frankie 8,151]

25 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

Doesn't that viewpoint go some way to explaining and informing the PR strategy?

 

No one likes us we don't care; the punters will always defiantly come back and pay towards the cause?

I'd say there is no discernible strategy and the punters are only a factor if and when siding with them protects the regime.

 

Rangers didn't fall about with the BBC because of one dodgy report from Chris McLaughlin or to protect the fans' reputation.  They fell out with them because certain people don't like the way they're portrayed (which in itself sometimes does prove bias ironically).

 

This is all about a few personalities and egos rather than anything else IMO.  Ultimately, I will defend Rangers' stance as I believe the coverage is flawed but I'd rather have the club standing with me carrying a clear list of offences than ITK Twitter accounts offering the odd nudge and a wink.

 

[buster. 4,808]

6 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I'd say there is no discernible strategy and the punters are only a factor if and when siding with them protects the regime.

 

Rangers didn't fall about with the BBC because of one dodgy report from Chris McLaughlin or to protect the fans' reputation.  They fell out with them because certain people don't like the way they're portrayed (which in itself sometimes does prove bias ironically).

 

This is all about a few personalities and egos rather than anything else IMO.  Ultimately, I will defend Rangers' stance as I believe the coverage is flawed but I'd rather have the club standing with me carrying a clear list of offences than ITK Twitter accounts offering the odd nudge and a wink.

 

IMO it had a lot to do with the previous years of Chris McLaughlin spearheading the BBC Scotland conduit (and requested slant) for the whichever 'spiv(s) Jack Irvine was serving at the time.

 

IMO, he had it coming and fully deserved it. 

However, one way or tuther, the 'case' should have been put out there of the Head football writer of the National Broadcaster playing for one side.

[MacK1950 2,231]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

This is all about a few personalities and egos rather than anything else IMO

Probably the most valid point in this topic.

[Walterbear 557]

2 hours ago, Frankie said:

I think the BBC are wholly to blame for their poor coverage of our club and the dispute between us.  Some of the coverage has been one-sided, deliberately confrontational and often biased.

 

However, three years down the line since the 'ban', I do believe the club could be doing more to address the situation, communicate with the fans and find solutions.

Overtures have been made from the BBC to Rangers about 18 months ago but no solution was found.  It may be my imagination but since then the veto of Rangers has extended way beyond not sending people to games. They put us on sufferance to the absolute margins of football news, unless it’s Morelos or McGregor kicking someone. Their boycott has intensified and become more bitter and is full on aggression. The reason is simple it is because we didn’t die and that has upset them. You can hear it in the tones of people like Willie Miller.

 

I first noticed the extent of marginalisation when I tuned in to get the Marseille friendly score and it wasn’t mentioned as there were first round league cup group fixtures taking place. 50,000 fans attended Ibrox on a summers day. You wouldn’t have known there was a game at all listening to BBC football coverage that day. 

 

Recently Tom English (who funnily enough I normally don’t mind too much) when answering a tweet asking him why he didn’t report positive things about Rangers responded that there hasn’t been much good news since 2012. I can see where he’s coming from and I think it has been pretty sh*t too but the converse worth noting if you are being fair is a massive positive that any other country’s national broadcaster would be proud, of which is world record 4th tier crowds, sell outs for 5 years in lower divisions, ploughing money into small clubs around the country, going from Brechin to the EL league stages in 6 years. He couldn’t think like that because his brain appears to have been rewired to suit the anti-Rangers agenda. In any other country it is a negative story but with a massive positive outcome, but in Scotland it isn’t because in truth they didn’t want it to happen. 

 

The BBC had been quite content to tell us Scottish football is better and more competitive without Rangers despite the fact our UEFA coefficient has plummeted, Celtic have been given a walkover for 5 years and Dick’s ‘2nd best in the country’ Aberdeen have won one league cup in 60+ attempts at domestic trophies over 20 years, and Celtic are going for a treble treble. 

 

To build bridges the BBC boycott now requires more than a few reporters turning up for games. It requires a cultural change where impartiality is the key and that isn’t going to happen with the likes of Dick Gordon at the helm of Sportsound. 

 

When Rangers start to win things - and we will - the BBC will be the ones who suffer and they may well rue the day they beat us when we were down. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Walterbear

[Darthter 542]

19 hours ago, cooponthewing said:

I have never met a pleasant nationalist anywhere in the world; be it Scotland or anywhere else (some of the guys on here exempt) . It’s the politics of division and separatism. Nationalism can’t be compromised or diluted, there is no relenting until their goal is achieved. Anyone in their way must be eliminated. 

Is being proud to be British/Unionist not nationalism as well???  It's exactly the same, just a different nation.

[buster. 4,808]

8 minutes ago, Darthter said:

Is being proud to be British/Unionist not nationalism as well???  It's exactly the same, just a different nation.

Yes, it is.....just a different flag.

 

In Scotland, you have Celtic fans with Irish flags and Rangers fans with Union flags 

 

 

[Soulsonic5791 408]

2 hours ago, Frankie said:

I'm agreeing with you.  If there was no bigotry to discuss, then they'd just talk about rule breaches or other Rangersbad stuff.

 

Look at Sunday's match - plenty IRA chanting from Celtic fans but no coverage.  No coverage of our fans because you couldn't hear them.

 

Ergo, what's the discussion - a naughty kick from McGregor that wasn't punished at the time or thereafter despite the new(ish) rules being clear it wasn't a red card offence.

Ahh, ok. I wasn't 100% sure with you using the word 'drift'.

 

This is it isn't it. If it wasn't that, they'd dredge up something from the past or use conjecture about something else no doubt.

[Gonzo79 13,660]

21 minutes ago, buster. said:

In Scotland, you have Celtic fans with Irish flags and Rangers fans with Union flags 

One word, "passport".

 

The UK is not a nation.

 

[buster. 4,808]

Just now, Gonzo79 said:

 The UK is not a nation.

 

That is the point.

 

Many seem 'to value' the Union, ahead of the nation and (metaphorically) wave that flag.

 

I was brought up in the East and I always considered myself Scottish and as I got older, the Union, as a longtime political construct.

 

I'd do away with all flags tbh, patriotism is too often badly abused by the few and often used against the best interests of the majority of the people.

 

 

[Gonzo79 13,660]

4 minutes ago, buster. said:

patriotism is too often badly abused by the few and often used against the best interests of the majority of the people.

We'll need to get rid of most things in life then.  Social media, TV, MSM etc all fit into the above description.

 

There's nothing wrong with patriotism.