JohnMc

That's a fair point although it certainly makes reporting on a match at Ibrox considerably harder. I still think it's counter-productive but you are correct, they've not been 'banned' as such.

Well simply because programmes on the BBC stand or fall on their popularity with viewers/listeners. Audience figures are measured and used to judge whether a programme is a success or not and whether it will be commissioned again. Falling audience numbers will either lead to a programme not being re-commissioned or being revamped. Programmes such as news, current affairs and sport are more likely to be revamped and changed if audience numbers drop. Also the BBC’s Royal Commission is currently being reviewed as it is due for renewal in 2016, as such everything it does must be justified either as providing a public service or providing entertainment or education.

I'm uncomfortable about banning journalists. Apart from anything else I genuinely believe it's counter-productive although I also dislike any curtailing of reporting because we don't like what the person is saying. If someone writes or says something that is simply wrong then sue them. Libel and slander are crimes in this country, the laws to deal with these things exist. If the words aren't actually illegal, you/we simply don't agree with them then don't buy the paper, click on the website or listen to the programme. All of these media organisations, even the BBC, rely on readers and audience numbers. If these fall then changes happen. It continues to surprise me how many Rangers supporters continue to read or listen to Speirs. Just don't. Don't buy the Times and don't follow him on Twitter it's really not hard. As a columnist he's only employable if he's read. McLaughlin of course works for the BBC where audience figures aren't as important. However don't think for two minutes that they're ignored, they aren't. Now again we have the choice of simply not listening to BBC Scotland or reading their website, however I understand why licence fee payers would find that unfair. Again though you can still use the BBC, simply ignoring their Scottish football coverage. Ironically I do think BBC Scotland's coverage of Rangers and Scottish football has improved in the last 12 to 18 months. They do have some decent journalists and there's more balance to their output. I'd love to know what our PR strategy is now and what part banning two journalists from our press box plays in it. It won't stop either writing what they want after all. It has clearly played well with the gallery, perhaps that was all it's about; getting some fans onside. One other observation. A lot has been said about McLaughlin's article after the Hibs game and his reporting of arrests for 'sectarian' offences. Everything I've read though has been about criticising him for reporting this, I've yet to read anyone criticise the morons who got arrested. Now innocent until proved otherwise, I accept that, but if we're all being honest we know it still goes on, particularly among a section of the away support. Whether you agree with these stupid laws or not isn't relevant, until it disappears completely from our fanbase people like McLaughlin will be able to report it. As unpalatable as it is building bridges with the media is the only sensible PR strategy our club should have. Offering exclusives, access and help is a very powerful tool, all media organisations are understaffed and under pressure to fill airways and columns.

I was reading about Goodes at the weekend, it's amazing how a story about a player you've never heard of in a sport no one understands can go global. I absolutely agree with Germinal though this is the next 'logical' step if 'sectarian' chanting ever becomes commonplace again.

Did I not read that Warburton asked the players to make the rules for conduct? I

Would that be the same Maradona who played in a World Cup Final aged 30? Are we using "young age" in the same way you use "very small"? :-) Alcohol wasn't an issue for Maradona until after he retired from playing, a penchant for cocaine and being kicked senseless by the most brutal defenders in world football every week were his main problems.

Here we are again SBS where you dismiss words actually used for ones in your head and continue to argue against something that's self evident to almost everyone else. Lets be clear the photo that started this conversation wasn't taken the night before Rangers played the Champions League Final and it doesn't show anyone "out on the lash", but don't let that stop you throwing strawmen in as usual. If abstinence from alcohol is so important why aren't Saudi Arabia world champions instead of Germany where drinking alcohol is a perfectly normal part of everyday life even for footballers? For every great player who had a drink problem I can throw two back who played at the highest level and knew when and how to have a drink and when not too. Brian Laudrup seemed to manage and the Danish view on alcohol is very similar to the UKs. It's all immaterial anyway as nobody on this thread has suggested drinking to excess is desirable or sensible.

Has anyone said they should be "allowed to drink and eat as they please"? Likewise "be given free reign to so as they please"? By all means criticise but criticise what's actually been said not something that no one thinks is right. If you don't think there are rules in place regarding diets, fitness levels, rest and recuperation and what is acceptable and when, then you've not been paying attention. Professional footballer's lives are heavily regulated, even Rangers players. The suggestion that having a few beers will somehow makes them less professional or poorer players is ignorant nonsense. They aren't tennis players or cyclists. Those are largely individual sports, football is a team sport, the nuances are important. Team spirit and camaraderie are vital in team sport, the sort of single-minded focus required in tennis and track cycling simply isn't transferable to any team sport.

Not only will most continental footballers drink alcohol a surprising number of them smoke too. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a drink if it is done in the right way and at the right time. Drinking too much, too often, isn't just an issue for footballers it's an issue for Scottish society. I've no problem with them going out for a drink on a Saturday night after a match a full week before there next game, we need to be realistic about these things. They're footballers not monks, teaching them when and how to let their hair down is a much more realistic than expecting total abstinence. If Allan played for Rangers and was agitating for a move away and was photographed enjoying himself with a group of players from the side trying to buy him just after they'd gubbed us I don't think I'd be too impressed. For all his apparent ability on the pitch I've never been very impressed by the decisions he makes off it.

Teams sell players to rivals fairly regularly, Dundee Utd have been acting as feeder side to Celtic recently and whilst their support aren't too happy Thomson and McNamara seem to have ridden the storm. Dempster and Stubbs would too, particularly if they paint Allen as agitating for a move so the support blame him. For a guy with less than 12 months on his contract and who it seems won't be signing a new one I'm not sure Hibs will have a lot of choice but to sell, it's only a matter of when and to who. I'd guess the when will be the last possible day of the transfer window in an a attempt at brinksmanship, to who is a more interesting question. That'll come down to Allen in the end, he holds the power in this, not Hibs or Rangers. Realistically in Scotland only Celtic, Dundee Utd or Rangers could afford to buy him, I can't see him rejoining Utd so it might depend on whether Celtic don't want us to have him enough to bid more. Your best hope is someone down south fancies a gamble however it didn't work out too well there before so they'll be cautious.

Yeah, good point about Shiels. Isn't the problem with Eustace one of fitness? I've been out the loop a bit recently but so perhaps events have gone one without me noticing but I thought Eustace was recovering from a knee op and there was a doubt about his ability to recover. Anyway, I'm only speculating, but as Templeton and McKay are the only natural 'wide' players in the squad (Aird I suppose too) I think we'll persevere with them, they're also both quite attack minded, I think that'll go in their favour. Who knows if they'll take that chance though. I also think Murdoch will have to prove it all again, I genuinely believe they all got a clean slate when Warburton arrived, that's benefited a player like McKay who was in the wilderness but hampered Murdoch who had become a first team regular.

I'm not sure Shiels is a midfielder, I'm not sure he's a forward either mind. We lost Black, Hutton and Smith from midfield and have brought in Halliday, Thomson and Holt. Has Eustace signed yet? It doesn't seem that Murdoch or Crawford are being considered currently and Aird seems to be back-up right back now leaving a list of Law Halliday Holt Templeton Shiels Walsh Thompson Aird McKay Even if we do bring in Eustace there's five spaces to fill each week, I'm not sure a roster of 10 midfielders to fill them is that big. I'd be surprised if McKay or Templeton are going anywhere this season. Whether Warbuston can make players of McKay and Templeton I don't know, both have talent but I'm not sure how big their hearts are.

Why Frankie? Templeton and McKay have been first picks so far and look to be getting a chance under Warburton, whether they'll take it is another matter of course. If he didn't fancy McKay he could have sent him to NI with the under 20s like he's done with Crawford and Murdoch. I'm not sure about Shiels, I've always felt there was a player in there trying to get out, if he can stay fit I could see him getting a chance, he looked much better under McCall last season.

I'm not sure I agree with you on money being allocated on the number of times a side features. Us coming 15th is our fault and that we'll be earning less again this season is again our fault. That ross County or Thistle earn more is correct, they play at a higher level. If we skew it so the number of times you appear in TV affects the payment then we're in reality building in a Rangers and Celtic bias to the prize money from day one. No matter how we perform we're going to be in demand from TV so we'll earn more. I don't think the English system has been good for football down there. There was a time when almost any side could realistically hope to win the top flight in England, the changes now mean in reality perhaps five sides can. That's not good for the game. The game in Scotland is skewed enough without us adding to it. A proper challenge from a side other than Celtic is what the game here needs, the stronger the league we're in the better we need to be.

I don't think so, if we go down that road then the clubs with the biggest support will always receive the most money rather than the clubs with the best football teams. Clubs with a bigger support already have a built in advantage as they'll get higher gate receipts, sponsorship, shirt sales etc but prize money should always be dependent on league position. It's frustrating for our support when our matches are moved to accommodate TV, however that's how the league works and what was signed up too. If we don't like it we should lobby our club and the SPFL to change it.

You're allowed to say whatever you desire SBS, I'm not the law around here. I've never heard of either of them so I'll make no judgements yet. I agree that 25 goals in 148 games doesn't suggest he's prolific however I guess I'd need more context before making my mind up. How many of those matches he actually started, was he in a struggling side, did he have a partner or was he playing one up, without that kind of information it's difficult to judge him. Someone who knew him described him as 'bustling' to me and I'm not sure it was meant as a compliment. I'll give him 15 minutes in our jersey before writing him off as a dud...

I don't know if it's real but I can explain it. The 'Total' column under TV Audience is the total number of viewers who took in a match featuring Rangers on TV last season. The Average column I assume is the average each match attracted assuming Rangers featured 21 times. The 'Share' column is baffling me to be honest but I think it means we appeared in 43% of all televised matches, but I could be wrong. The Prize Pot has two columns, this is allocated on the basis of where a side finished in the league with top of the SPL getting the most and then a sliding scale all the way down to Montrose at the bottom of whatever the bottom division is called this season. So because we finished third in our league we get 1.6% of the prize pot that's £288,000. I imagine the graph is attempting to show the discrepancy between audience and income, although I disagree those two figures should equate. We are where we are and so the prizemoney we get should be less than clubs finishing higher than us.

Aye, but he's still really small...

We finished third last season whilst enveloped in chaos, under three managers, two of whom had clearly chucked it. We sold our best player in January and didn't replace him and a large number of the squad knew they weren't getting a new contract and no matter what people say that affects how they train and play. On top of that there was clearly no team spirit and Hearts were clearly the best side in the league by some way. None of the players that have been released are a huge loss, yes we've lost some experience and competition for places but is there really anyone of them you could say we'll really miss this season? What I think that means is if some stability and team spirit can be injected along with a game plan then the squad is certainly capable of gain promotion as it stands. St Mirren won't be as strong as Hearts were although I think they've made a shrewd choice of manager, Hibs have cut their squad and QOTS and Falkirk won't be any stronger than last season. The squad as it stands should be strong enough to win the league, it won't be easy but it's certainly achievable.

The obvious answer is their London sub-editor looked up 'Scottish Police' in their image bank and found that one and has no idea where it is. There's no connection between 'us' and the story. dB you have some of the most eclectic reading tastes, a Guardian opinion piece on Scottish legal reform? I'm sure they talk of nothing else on the Kurfurstendamn!

C'mon LucyBlue get with the programme. It's all McCulloch's fault, he chose his own salary, he picked the side and chose where he should play, he didn't leave when liquidation happened the bastard, he didn't spend enough time as a 12 year old working on his touch and he shouldn't have aged. When you think about it he's like the love child of Peter Grant and that mental blogger in Ireland. Well you'd think he was when you read how some Rangers supporters speak about him. I hope we give a contract just to watch some of the deranged loons on here combust.

I'm sounding very negative about this and I don't mean to be. I'm all for trying that and anything that builds bridges between players and supporters is ultimately in the player's interest. It's a cultural thing though so it can be addressed. Our recent American players dealt with the media in a professional way. Some of them had been bitten by the media on a personal and professional level but they understood that it's part of the 'job' and so made themselves available, turned up on time and stayed until it was over. It sounds basic but it's unusual. For a variety of reasons players don't want to give up their 'free time' and convincing them it's in their interests or job description is difficult. The ex-players thing is interesting, for some it's a way to make a living or supplement it at least and for others it's a way to stay involved with the sport. I wonder if the next generation of ex-players who made so much money playing they don't need to supplement their income will be as interested in doing it. With Warburton's background not being in professional football and with Weir having come through the American college system it'll be interesting to see if they view this differently to previous managers.

It's an interesting piece, however working with players can be very hit and miss. Most are at best reluctant and some downright hostile to media interviews, even to the club's own internal media that can almost be guaranteed to portray them in the best light. It's part of the job and players are contractually obliged to do it but it can be like getting blood from a stone at times. Most players aren't charismatic, they aren't great raconteurs or very self aware. Many are very self centred (it's professional sport, it's a highly competitive and brutal industry, that's not always a bad trait), many are poorly educated, young and have been indulged from an early age because of their natural talent. In recent history a fairly high profile international player, one the club paid a reasonable transfer fee for and who is/was a boyhood supporter of the club actually sneaked out of a fire escape at Murray Park whilst the in-house media were setting up to interview him leaving them bewildered and pissed off and leaving a gap in their broadcast schedules. This isn't an isolated incident, management and agents will defend this type of behaviour because they too see it as an inconvenience rather than an integral part of the job. I get where the person at FF is coming from but you have to factor in that these people are fitba players and work from there. The club website could better and it's output could be better but that takes resources and money, something that wasn't made available in recent times.

I'm losing the will to live. Barcelona currently have two ex-Liverpool players in their first choice 11 and Real have two ex-Spurs and an ex-Man U, I mean it's patent nonsense to assert "foreign teams have no interest in English football", it's utter drivel. What we have is a very limited number of clubs who can afford to compete with English clubs, an entirely different thing from having "no interest". I've no idea what point you're trying to make about QPR other than they are badly run and badly managed. Let's call a truce, you tell me and everyone else on here what leagues are better than the English ones and where our new manager should be signing players from and we'll call it quits. I'm sure the answer will be both enlightening and amusing, what more could we ask of a Friday afternoon.

Once more into the breach... Lies, damned lies and statistics. English sides don't take the Europa League seriously, neither do Italian ones for that matter. Why? Because the money on offer is considerably less than they'd get for finishing just one place higher in their own leagues. They might take the odd game seriously but not the tournament. That's why UEFA introduced the carrot of Champion's League qualification for the winner because they know it's not taken seriously by some of the big leagues. I don't understand how anyone can claim the contrary. The Champion's League is different, they definitely take that seriously. Are the top English sides as good as the two top Spanish or Bayern currently? No, it's clear to say. Does that mean the English league system isn't the strongest in Europe? No, it doesn't. There's maybe an argument to say La Liga is as strong, although I don't believe it is, but no other league in Europe is. I was "demeaning" Brentford? Ah, bless, the poor wee lambs, did I hurt their feelings do you think? Seriously, there's not a fuck big enough I couldn't give just now. I'm not sure remembering John McLelland wins you anything at Top Trumps, maybe most likely to need viagra or hair replacement surgery if they're categories. As you seem to struggle with anything that's not totally literal I'll try again; I've nothing against Brentford or Watford, but neither club should be able to sign our best player. Both did and both periods are low water marks in our history. Does that make me arrogant, hell yeah, but it doesn't make me wrong.