amms
-
Posts
1,807 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by amms
-
Maybe, although I doubt it. Traynor was an advocate for banning individuals rather than whole papers or broadcasters.
-
I think you are confusing that role with a PR role. His remit was to improve Rangers owned media channels - the Programme, Rangers TV and website - so they could make more revenue. I've no idea if they did make more revenue but the quality on them improved, in my opinion. I'd add that you've no idea if he improved our PR or not, you only know what did get reported, not what didn't. Think about it, almost all the bad stuff we generate and supply to the media ourselves.
-
I wonder if he's got a confidentiality clause. be some book if he doesn't. I worried that Traynor would become the story when he joined and he did to an extent but I think he improved some of our output and from what I hear was a force for good inside the club.
-
-
I've said this for years and it's still true today; Media House are delivering a message they are being paid to spread. Irvine is the lightning rod, he attracts the criticism but he's only the conductor, he's being paid handsomely to do it. Direct your anger at who is paying him, who is sanctioning him and who is signing off his strategy and invoices. Jack's only toxic because that's what those paying him are asking for, never forget that.
-
Some perspective is required on this. We're talking about a small part of the BBC, indeed we're talking about a small part of BBC Scotland, in essence a section of their news department and their sport department. The truth is upsetting a set of football supporters by referring to them as a 'new club' and similar references isn't going to register particularly highly on issues facing the BBC. We'd do well to recognise this. The BBC is a global organisation working at the highest level of politics, industry and entertainment, they produce genre defining programmes, the set global standards in production and are as influential a broadcaster as exists. This is a small squabble in the provinces between football fans, it's not ever going to be a serious subject for those controlling the BBC. The issue we have with BBC Scotland is indicative of an issue Rangers have with a section of Scottish society. We're misunderstood and marginalised in many ways but we are prone to bring this on our selves, in my opinion. As unpalatable as it sounds the best thing we can do is start to re-engage with the BBC again. We require a charm offensive, we need to remind people that we're, for the most part, fairly normal functioning members of society with views and lives aligned with everyone else. We're viewed as constantly angry, humourless, arrogant and entitled. We all know that's not reality, but we are prone to displaying those traits from time to time. How we've become the 'bad guys' when Celtic are owned by a tax exile, run by the odious Peter Lawwell and managed by the most disliked player to ever ply his trade in Scotland is an astonishing turn of events. It shouldn't be beyond us to redress it either.
-
Match Preview Schedule - Volunteer to write a Gersnet Match Preview
amms replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat
I'll do the Forfar match if no one else want it. -
That was nearly an answer. Hypothetically, if he'd never said it would you then want to know who is behind Blue Pitch and Margarita? It's not a trick question.
-
So if Regan hadn't made that statement would you then want to know who owns us? Is it the threat of Regan making good his statement that leads to you not wanting to know our owners?
-
Interesting post Calscot. Has thought ever been given to a 'Gersnet' collective clubbing together and buying shares? I appreciate it's a drop in the ocean but if it was a start who knows what might come of it.
-
I accept it's not going to happen but to pull that flag out at a match would be very funny. I remember when the Dublin Loyal banner first started appearing apparently a section of the Celtic support went nuts trying to find out who they were. If we appropriated their flag they'd spontaneously combust, I nice big Jon Daly Loyal across the top would set it off perfectly. I recall when we signed Basil Boli (we signed Laudrup at the same time, I was more excited by Boli, just goes to show what I know about football) someone who wrote for Follow Follow in the days when it was a fanzine contacted the Ivory Coast embassy to find out what their flag looked like with the intention of welcoming Abidjan's most famous son to Ibrox. Let's just say he opted for the French flag instead.
-
'A team in Rangers colours'. You just know hours and hours were spent composing that sentence, trying to find a way of saying what they want to say without actually saying it.
-
I've asked you this before but you've not answered, but I'll persevere because I find your mindset on this subject so opposite from mine that I'm intrigued at how you came to it. Are you simply disinterested in the ownership of Rangers? Is it all about the team on the park for you and you've not really much interest in boardroom and ownership issues? I'm not being dismissive or judgemental when I ask this, I'm just genuinely curious why someone who contributes to threads on the subject fairly regularly doesn't seem interested in who owns Rangers?
-
-
This is easily solved gentlemen. Crucible could get a good nights sleep without his recurring Stewart Regan nightmare and D'Art and Barca could rightly say 'we told you so' if, if, the identity of the people who own that large shareholding in Our club was a matter of public record. There is no need for secrecy here and it only leads to mistrust. Why don't you want I know? Why isn't it important to you to know who owns and controls our club?
-
That's a really interesting article. When it's simplified down to those kind of numbers it makes you wonder why we're so unable to do this.
-
Well, when you said this... ....you make it fairly clear you are worried Craig Whyte is lurking deep in the bowels of Blue Pitch Holdings. Your irrational fear of Stewart Regan has absolutely no basis unless you think Whyte's there and Regan will make good his threat. As I said before Crucible you are all over the place on this subject. You don't know what you believe.
-
C'mon D'Art we're not hard to tell apart. I've an avatar featuring an astonishing sportsman who broke taboos and changed history, Andy has an Edinburgh private schoolboy on his!
-
-
-
Yes, Daly has so far proved a very astute signing. Not only is he a good player and starting to score goals regularly but he's a leader on the pitch and in the dressing room too and that was sorely missing last season.
-
Crucible's all over the place on this subject. He doesn't want to know who owns the club in case it turns out to be Craig Whyte. He doesn't think it is Craig Whyte, but he still doesn't want to know because he's scared Stewart Regan will stride down Edmiston Drive like a modern day Damocles wielding his tyrannical sword and reducing Ibrox to rubble and casting our support out into the wilderness forever. Plus we've no legal right to know and that's what's important in all this.
-
No, we're not going round in circles. I keep showing you how perverse you're view on this is and you keep turning round and running in the other direction with your hands over your ears shouting 'I'm not listening'. That's quite different. Where have I claimed it's illegal? Where has anyone claimed it's illegal? Legal right doesn't come into it. Wanting to know who owns our football club is a perfectly normal thing to ask. Not wanting to know is both puzzling and a little troubling. Tell me, if an anonymous holding group purchased more of our club, say a controlling share, would you be okay with that? Would you simply shrug your shoulders and say 'ach well, I've no legal right to know'? What if they installed someone you don't like to run the club, started selling our best players, sold and leased back our ground...? Where's your line in the sand on this Crucible, at what point do you say 'who are these guys and what do they want with my club'? Oh, and bowing out of a debate you're struggling to make doesn't help validate your opinion.
-
So if I've understood you correctly you blame the owner(s) of the club, namely Whyte and SDM. So do I. Now I think, if we'd had more clarity, asked more questions and demanded answers of the people who owned us what happened might have been avoided. The people who own Rangers should know that the support are vigilant now, will question their motives, their decisions, their words and their actions, after all it was our previous owners who nearly killed us. Don't you agree? So the very beginning of that conversation is them telling us exactly who they are. Why anyone wouldn't want to know that that, indeed demand to know that is beyond me. Just for your information it was the owners of Hearts and Dunfermline who fucked their clubs over too. You can see the pattern here, can't you?
-
I asked you this on the Keith Jackson thread but you might have missed as you didn't reply. So I'll ask again here - Tell me Crucible who do you think were responsible for our club slipping into administration, failing to get a CVA and so forth? Who do you blame for that happening? Same with Hearts and Dunfermline if you've been following their stories, who do you blame?