GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said: Other than they are the kind of people who, in your opinion, would drag both fans & club backwards ? Care to expand on that one.... I think you know what I mean, but as I am sure it would lead to a 50 pager, I have no desire to open that can of worms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, GrandSuckMaster said: I think you know what I mean, but as I am sure it would lead to a 50 pager, I have no desire to open that can of worms. No, I dont - hence why I asked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, GrandSuckMaster said: I think you know what I mean, but as I am sure it would lead to a 50 pager, I have no desire to open that can of worms. Don't be a shitebag. Have the courage of your convictions. I'm going to sleep soon (big game tomorrow and early start) but I'd love to come in and see some of this ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, K.A.I said: They would have been fined for bringing the club into disrepute. Did the BBC fine (after funding and authorising) the people who work for them with clear agendas against us? ... again, even then it's not even close to being the same thing. You really are clutching at straws. What do you suggest with Gascoigne in particular? giving him a free transfer? Drop him, suspend him for a period of time, massive fine and a public apology at the very least. I've no idea the disciplinary sanctions available to the BBC. Assuming it's like any 'regular' employee they'd be subject to the disciplinary process and potentially summary dismissal. Of course, you KNOW none of that happened after any BBC Trust complaint was upheld... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, The Dude said: Drop him, suspend him for a period of time, massive fine and a public apology at the very least. I've no idea the disciplinary sanctions available to the BBC. Assuming it's like any 'regular' employee they'd be subject to the disciplinary process and potentially summary dismissal. Of course, you KNOW none of that happened after any BBC Trust complaint was upheld... Why would they sanction something and people they agreed with, though. Hence the anti-Rangers agenda on an institutional level within that organisation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, K.A.I said: No. Because you said there was no title stripping campaign and then refused to acknowledge my sources that would prove you wrong. To me that means the same thing - you're in denial and think no exists. Deluded. lol, switching to a totally different point to avoid admitting you were wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thistleman 52 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, GrandSuckMaster said: I think you know what I mean, but as I am sure it would lead to a 50 pager, I have no desire to open that can of worms.  2 minutes ago, GrandSuckMaster said: I think you know what I mean, but as I am sure it would lead to a 50 pager, I have no desire to open that can of worms. i don,t know what you mean and if you don,t care to explain maybe you should not bring such things up Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, GrandSuckMaster said: lol, switching to a totally different point to avoid admitting you were wrong. No it's not. It's inter-linked. You said there was no title stripping campaign after saying any agenda against us is greatly exaggerated. To me that's you saying everything is rosy and nothing to see on that front. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, K.A.I said: Why would they sanction something and people they agreed with, though. Hence the anti-Rangers agenda on an institutional level within that organisation. The conclusion of any complaint upheld by the BBC Trust for example. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said: No, I dont - hence why I asked. OK, here we go: "Established in 2007, Vanguard Bears are a group of Loyalist & Unionist Rangers supporters, whose aims are to ensure that the good standing and unionist tradition of THE quintessential British Club is maintained, and to support the Protestant Unionist Loyalist community in Scotland, Ulster and beyond. Our motto "Defending Our Traditions" refers to this." I believe politics and religion should not be associated with a football club. I think we should move forward without political or religious ties. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, The Dude said: The conclusion of any complaint upheld by the BBC Trust for example. But you said a few pages back that the McCoist segment and the introduction to that, for example, was disgusting and jobs should have been lost. So why weren't they? that backs up my point. You are in serious denial about your precious media friends/outlets in Scotland. I'm actually a bit depressed typing this out that there's still Rangers fans like you who can't/won't see this and Suckmaster who is adamant there was no title stripping campaign. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, K.A.I said: No it's not. It's inter-linked. You said there was no title stripping campaign after saying any agenda against us is greatly exaggerated. To me that's you saying everything is rosy and nothing to see on that front. no, i was saying you lied again as there is no published evidence of a title stripping campaign. Â Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, K.A.I said: Don't be a shitebag. Have the courage of your convictions. I'm going to sleep soon (big game tomorrow and early start) but I'd love to come in and see some of this ..... who is playing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, GrandSuckMaster said: no, i was saying you lied again as there is no published evidence of a title stripping campaign. Â wtf ... you are seriously beyond parody. I wondered why no-one took you seriously on here but now I know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, K.A.I said: But you said a few pages back that the McCoist segment and the introduction to that, for example, was disgusting and jobs should have been lost. So why weren't they? that backs up my point. You are in serious denial about your precious media friends/outlets in Scotland. I'm actually a bit depressed typing this out that there's still Rangers fans like you who can't/won't see this and Suckmaster who is adamant there was no title stripping campaign. They very well may have been. I've no idea, nor in all honesty any real interest. Who was the producer behind the segment? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, K.A.I said: wtf ... you are seriously beyond parody. I wondered why no-one took you seriously on here but now I know. lol, show me published evidence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, The Dude said: They very well may have been. I've no idea, nor in all honesty any real interest. Who was the producer behind the segment? Why would you have no real interest? and isn't the sports editor Chris McGlaughlin? wouldn't he have approved it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, GrandSuckMaster said: OK, here we go: "Established in 2007, Vanguard Bears are a group of Loyalist & Unionist Rangers supporters, whose aims are to ensure that the good standing and unionist tradition of THE quintessential British Club is maintained, and to support the Protestant Unionist Loyalist community in Scotland, Ulster and beyond. Our motto "Defending Our Traditions" refers to this." I believe politics and religion should not be associated with a football club. I think we should move forward without political or religious ties. So in essence you disagree with the following : "whose aims are to ensure that the good standing and unionist tradition of THE quintessential British Club is maintained" I'm struggling to see how supporting ceremonies such as the Loving Cup and the flying of the Union Flag would drag either the club or the fanbase backwards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, GrandSuckMaster said: lol, show me published evidence. Is that the route you seriously want to go down? do you need published evidence for everything? have you seen Mark Warburton's birth certificate I take it you don't believe that's his real name? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, K.A.I said: Why would you have no real interest? and isn't the sports editor Chris McGlaughlin? wouldn't he have approved it? No. Chris McLaughlin wouldn't have had anything to do with the creation or approval of the intro to a live TV broadcast. He's a reporter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, D'Artagnan said: So in essence you disagree with the following : "whose aims are to ensure that the good standing and unionist tradition of THE quintessential British Club is maintained" I'm struggling to see how supporting ceremonies such as the Loving Cup and the flying of the Union Flag would drag either the club or the fanbase backwards. no, that is not what I disagree with. I told you what I disagreed with in my post. Please re-read. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, The Dude said: No. Chris McLaughlin wouldn't have had anything to do with the creation or approval of the intro to a live TV broadcast. He's a reporter. Fair enough, was just a guess. I'll be happy enough to do a little digging and come back to you on it but I'd bet anything he's still in a job. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandSuckMaster 1,775 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, K.A.I said: Is that the route you seriously want to go down? do you need published evidence for everything? have you seen Mark Warburton's birth certificate I take it you don't believe that's his real name? ok, give me any piece of evidence, even a made up one. I will give you a year as it will be hard to find. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Just now, K.A.I said: Fair enough, was just a guess. I'll be happy enough to do a little digging and come back to you on it but I'd bet anything he's still in a job. He might be. He could also have been sanctioned yet remained in his position. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, GrandSuckMaster said: no, that is not what I disagree with. I told you what I disagreed with in my post. Please re-read. I dont need to re-read your post I know what you said. The problem is that what you are against is not reflected by the VB aims regarding the club, which you have promulgated. 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.