buster. 4,974 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 (edited) Compared to his relationship with other RFC directors, I don't think KJ gets on that well with King so can, from time to time, allow that to dictate his output. As warbsismagic concludes, I'd also suggest this article is merely a balancing act for the negative coverage the Record's printing partner is suffering from right now. You stated....".....I think there's more to Keith's criticism than simple concern." Are you saying those thoughts are simply that Jackson doesn't get on well with King (compared to other directors) and if so, is there a specific reason for this that you think may be 'important' going forward..... .........or was it something else ? ----------------------------- ps. The KJ article was already in the pipeline prior to the events at Parkhead on Sunday. Edited April 26, 2016 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,308 Posted April 26, 2016 Author Share Posted April 26, 2016 You stated....".....I think there's more to Keith's criticism than simple concern." Are you saying those thoughts are simply that Jackson doesn't get on well with King (compared to other directors) and if so, is there a specific reason for this that you think may be 'important' going forward..... .........or was it something else ? ----------------------------- ps. The KJ article was already in the pipeline prior to the events at Parkhead on Sunday. Nothing specific - just, like I said, that Keith doesn't get on with King so that will cloud his judgement now and again. IMHO of course! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 Unfortuntely Frankie we are not getting the full story here' date=' But its up to Jackson to qualify the reasons for his Monday column not me.[/quote'] Can you expand on what you think the "full story" may involve ? It's up to you to do so if you have grounds to believe there is a "full story" rather than leave it in the air knowing that Jackson won't come along to do it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 Nothing specific - just, like I said, that Keith doesn't get on with King so that will cloud his judgement now and again. IMHO of course! Thanks ! Not want to jump on you old boy but it just sounded a bit 'cloak and dagger' when it now appears nothing but a journalist not getting on with a chairman. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,308 Posted April 26, 2016 Author Share Posted April 26, 2016 (edited) Thanks ! Not want to jump on you old boy but it just sounded a bit 'cloak and dagger' when it now appears nothing but a journalist not getting on with a chairman. FWIW, Jackson is no Tom English when it comes to King... Edited April 26, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 FWIW, Jackson is no Tom English when it comes to King... I don't consider either very consequential although English is a better journalist than Jackson, which is like saying Ayr Utd are better than Forfar. I don't consider English to be directly in with the group that have over a long period of time made it their business to go after 'all things Rangers' in an organised way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 I don't consider either very consequential although English is a better journalist than Jackson, which is like saying Ayr Utd are better than Forfar. I don't consider English to be directly in with the group that have over a long period of time made it their business to go after 'all things Rangers' in an organised way. I agree with you Buster up to a point, on English and the company he keeps. He was when he first arrived on these shores, uncompromised in his opinion of Rangers. However that changed greatly when he started to regularly appear on Radio Scotland, with fellow travelers Spiers, and Spence on it's extremely anti Rangers biased programme's, Sportsound and Off the Ball. After his indoctrination to their agenda his attitude changed considerably imo, he has since become a cheerleader in the anti-Rangers agenda within the BBC Pacific Quay CSC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,308 Posted April 26, 2016 Author Share Posted April 26, 2016 I don't consider either very consequential although English is a better journalist than Jackson, which is like saying Ayr Utd are better than Forfar. I don't consider English to be directly in with the group that have over a long period of time made it their business to go after 'all things Rangers' in an organised way. I find English quite an interesting commentator. Usually his contribution is well argued but, quite often, he also seems to hold back. He's not (always) part of the baying crowd but neither is he his own man. That's a pity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 (edited) I agree with you Buster up to a point, on English and the company he keeps. He was when he first arrived on these shores, uncompromised in his opinion of Rangers. However that changed greatly when he started to regularly appear on Radio Scotland, with fellow travelers Spiers, and Spence on it's extremely anti Rangers biased programme's, Sportsound and Off the Ball. After his indoctrination to their agenda his attitude changed considerably imo, he has since become a cheerleader in the anti-Rangers agenda within the BBC Pacific Quay CSC. It's a strange moving-panorama but there are varying reasons as to why various journalists say and write what they do regards Rangers. 1. Those who are actually organised and at times co-ordinated in their efforts are few in number, eg. Alex Thomson. 2. There are those who simply dislike our club and it sometimes shows. 3. There are those in '2' that become embroiled in it all and seem to radicalise their output further, eg. Spence. 4. There are those who use social media forums to form their own stance, try to be controversial for their own commercial interests because they aren't capable of anything else, eg. Spiers (in the past he furthered his career on the back of a more structured and for us, damaging assault on cultural issues). 5. It's their opinion or their take on the facts as they see them. 6. They like our club and write/talk accordingly. 7. Dodgy source / Spin-doctor involvement, eg. McLaughlin. etc. Edited April 26, 2016 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted April 26, 2016 Share Posted April 26, 2016 I find English quite an interesting commentator. Usually his contribution is well argued but, quite often, he also seems to hold back. He's not (always) part of the baying crowd but neither is he his own man. That's a pity. Scottish football is an almost impossible place for a promising or good journalist to prosper. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.