podcast thread (image) GN Pod 017 - Your questions please...

[weebluedevil 1,253]

Were we right to cut Celtics allocation at Ibrox?  Does a tiny away support disadvantage us more when we play at Parkhead than it will disadvantage  them when they play at Ibrox? Or does it make no difference? Does it diminish the global spectacle that is one of the biggest derbies in the world? Question from the wee blue devil. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by weebluedevil

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I am entering this for Darther because I think it is an excellent Question.
 
As a support, I am getting a distinct impression that we are getting extremely paranoid & convinced that EVERYONE is against us.  For example:
- BBC
- SFA
- SPFL
- Scottish Govt
- SNP (at all levels)
- Police Scotland
- HMRC
- Ibrox & Cessnock Community Council
- Glasgow City Council
- All teams within the SPFL & many out with
- All Referees
- Tartan Army
- Scottish Print media
- Scottish TV media
- Scottish Radio media

Whats the question?

[pete 2,499]

4 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

2 hours ago, pete said:

I am entering this for Darther because I think it is an excellent Question.
 
As a support, I am getting a distinct impression that we are getting extremely paranoid & convinced that EVERYONE is against us.  For example:
- BBC
- SFA
- SPFL
- Scottish Govt
- SNP (at all levels)
- Police Scotland
- HMRC
- Ibrox & Cessnock Community Council
- Glasgow City Council
- All teams within the SPFL & many out with
- All Referees
- Tartan Army
- Scottish Print media
- Scottish TV media
- Scottish Radio media

Whats the question?

Quite simple are we toning signs of Paranoia.

[Rick Roberts 246]

I think most of these are covered on the BBC thread but i'll post them here...

 

Clarity required around Mclaughlin and his situation from the club. Anyone that’s witnessed him in actions knows he was out of control and who pulls his strings. This needs reiterated as lack of info leads to people jumping to conclusions (people like me). Btw - BBC still blatantly at it to this day (coverage of McGregor appears solely to be because its Rangers, compounded by digs at Morelos and repeated mentions of Jacks “red” cards). I understand tabloids would get together and set narrative but why are BBC on this bandwagon. Contrast against stuff that gets overlooked - digs, kicks against us and celtics singing/violence last weekend.

 

It would be good to know who made the call to boycott Ibrox. As others have said, there’s no real precedent for it - Man U and Dundee never got boycotted. Hard to see any other factor than “its Rangers”. I’d guess composition of decision panel would probably be revealing. If people like Cosgrove, English, Gordon etc are pulling together then its hardly surprising. If its supported higher up and allowed to continue then its disappointing/worrying and something club should be shining light on imho.

 

The current level and quality coverage is a real damaging factor for RFC. Lack of parity with peers, limited exposure and tone of coverage are tangible. And have been for years (3 years now). As per people involved, I guess they aren’t too bothered about a solution as this status quo suits just fine. Bloody-mindedness to one side. The BBC are too big and important too just overlook and pretend we can exist without. Not just because of what it gives us, but when we are on the outside it also gives others an upper hand, for free. We should be (need to be) back in there and influencing it's output. I see the lack of action on this part as a failing of Rangers side.

 

Unless there's something we're not being told - I would rather RFC made a bigger fuss over fair treatment etc. For me there’s a case that we should start demanded damages until the BBC buckles or at least make a public statement defining their position – if only to draw them out and give us something to attack. I’d be asking for £millions in compensation. Even if it’s not likely or possible I’d like to see an exaggerated, bullish posture adopted against them. I’d say they’ve breached their codes and duty and went out of their way to be awkward and aggressive against Rangers; ultimately, deliberately damaging the clubs brand and PR over an extended period of time. The club has been quite good  on the front foot lately and the change since Paul Murray left had been overdue.

 

Going further - I’d also be looking at demographics and politics within BBC Scotland and asking if we’re being excluded at some level – because it certainly appears that way.

[Gaffer 1,665]

As Rangers supporters, do we need the BBC? (We all know we deserve coverage because we pay for it, but do we really need it?)

 

Should Rangers be doing something to end the issue with the BBC?

 

With perceived boardroom failures (the saga over strips, the Wallace/Miller issue, our PR failures in changing the narrative in the press), do we need different/stronger executives?

 

Would 55 be the greatest success in our club's history?

 

And if you fancy breaking the world record for the length of a podcast, is the SNP anti-Rangers?  And why are so few politicians open about their support for Rangers?  Although maybe save this until you've got Gonzo and Darthter on  the panel. ?

 

 

[buster. 5,257]

27 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

With perceived boardroom failures (the saga over strips, the Wallace/Miller issue, our PR failures in changing the narrative in the press), do we need different/stronger executives?

We first need a holistic strategy AND then competent+ executive management to carry it out day to day.

 

Instead we have occasional leadership and mostly reactionary day to day management.

 

[Rick Roberts 246]

28 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

With perceived boardroom failures (the saga over strips, the Wallace/Miller issue, our PR failures in changing the narrative in the press), do we need different/stronger executives?

 

That's a good point and there's plenty questions around it.

 

Caixinha, can that be excused? 

Murty, only mitigation is that Gerrard was being readied in the background and we needed Murty to hang on.

King is obviously main man. But does this weaken us in other ways. Does he surround himself with yes men? What did Paul Murray add? Likewise, are others kept around but better options available? Bigger hitters?

Does King being there prevent anything or people getting involved, investment? 

 

Overall happy with things now, generally, especially Gerrard and his team. But do feel we've wasted some time along the way and missed some opportunities. 

[pete 2,499]

8 minutes ago, Rick Roberts said:

That's a good point and there's plenty questions around it.

 

Caixinha, can that be excused? 

Murty, only mitigation is that Gerrard was being readied in the background and we needed Murty to hang on.

King is obviously main man. But does this weaken us in other ways. Does he surround himself with yes men? What did Paul Murray add? Likewise, are others kept around but better options available? Bigger hitters?

Does King being there prevent anything or people getting involved, investment? 

 

Overall happy with things now, generally, especially Gerrard and his team. But do feel we've wasted some time along the way and missed some opportunities. 

Gerrard wasn't being readied in the background, we were waiting for McInnes.

[T-1000 174]

With two offensive full-backs/wing backs in Tavernier and Barisic would Rangers benefit from playing three at the back; Goldson, Katic and Worrall?

[Rick Roberts 246]

Just now, pete said:

Gerrard wasn't being readied in the background, we were waiting for McInnes.

Do we know that? I know he got offered but maybe because King wouldnt commit fully to him (short contracts, no gaurantees beyond summer etc) because he knew this might happen? I'm just guessing btw.