Glasgow tims

[Malvern 11,329]

I am surprised the Police did their job an arrested the cunt. Still the Judges will do their job in good "honest" tradition and give the tattie muncher a suspended sentence and 5 hail mary's.

[bluenoz 30,689]

No doubt the flag will be seen as the key piece of evidence and it will soon go missing.

[Lord Lockin 3,909]

10 minutes ago, Malvern said:

I am surprised the Police did their job an arrested the cunt. Still the Judges will do their job in good "honest" tradition and give the tattie muncher a suspended sentence and 5 hail mary's.

Exuberance - been there before 

[pollok-bear 7,537]

LIEwell working hard I see.

[Inigo 32,526]

52 minutes ago, The Hammer 11 said:

Did David Murray not own a newspaper at one point?

He created his own. The Sunday Scot. Lasted a short time before folding. Didn't get the circulation.

Still remember the TV advert... 'Scottish, and proud of it: The Sunday Scot' to jaunty music.

[GaryMc 2,394]

Do we have a PR company for stuff like this? It's pretty common for companies to have PR teams to document, scrub, spin and bury bad news stories for them.

We know the scum do this and have it with Hollicom and due to their disgraceful history they want to bury  a lot but is it a service we use?

It probably wouldn't help with us though as the media are full of they cunts and I'd rather not use it out of dignity and transparency but all these little negative type stories add up and damage your brand & reputation.

[Don54 25,517]

37 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

No doubt the flag will be seen as the key piece of evidence and it will soon go missing.

One thing for sure it'll no get destroyed in a fire

[Ladytonbear 374]

14 hours ago, Malvern said:

I am surprised the Police did their job an arrested the cunt. Still the Judges will do their job in good "honest" tradition and give the tattie muncher a suspended sentence and 5 hail mary's.

Probably get Donald Findlay to defend his ‘high jinks’ in court

[Malvern 11,329]

3 minutes ago, Ladytonbear said:

Probably get Donald Findlay to defend his ‘high jinks’ in court

He knows the Sash but does law for cash.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

14 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Here we go, standard Sassaaa raging when asked to justify a pov. 

How do you know our Board do fuck all?  Do you think the press treat us and the scum equally in what they write and how they deal with complaints?

The recent thread with c1872 statement articulates what in saying about the difficulties our club faces. What other than your hatred towards everything and everyone including our Board gives justification that our Board should be criticised for doing fuck all with things in print compared to the scum who apparently get action within minutes?

How do you the know the Board do something??

Your argument is pointless. 
 

It’s took months for 1872 to drag an apology out of the press but Scum FC get any reference to ScumFC removed in 10minutes. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

1 hour ago, Courtyard Bear said:

How do you the know the Board do something??

Your argument is pointless. 
 

It’s took months for 1872 to drag an apology out of the press but Scum FC get any reference to ScumFC removed in 10minutes. 

The ipso win is a joint Board  / club1872 defence and action against a rag that hates us. That is the proof. If I give proof of an entity you say does nothing actually doing something then it's absolutely relevant. Definitive rather than pointless.

That was for a legal breach rather than our name being used in an article which when we preferred it not to be, as was the case with the scum.  Theirs was no legal issue, yet it seems the paper quite willingly removed the reference anyways. 

It does take us longer than the scum to get action, I agree. Given the scum still advertise significantly with the MSM, have had partnerships, are run by taig editors and have taig writers its unsurprising.  But it's also not the fault of the Rangers Board given the Press hatred of our club and the support / working relationship with the scum Board.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

The ipso win is a joint Board  / club1872 defence and action against a rag that hates us. That is the proof. If I give proof of an entity you say does nothing actually doing something then it's absolutely relevant. Definitive rather than pointless.

That was for a legal breach rather than our name being used in an article which when we preferred it not to be, as was the case with the scum.  Theirs was no legal issue, yet it seems the paper quite willingly removed the reference anyways. 

It does take us longer than the scum to get action, I agree. Given the scum still advertise significantly with the MSM, have had partnerships, are run by taig editors and have taig writers its unsurprising.  But it's also not the fault of the Rangers Board given the Press hatred of our club and the support / working relationship with the scum Board.

You missed the whole point. 
 

Why do we need to get to that extreme, you say the scum have partnerships with the media so they get things done. 
Dougie Park got a story about a fellow board member retracted at the drop of a hat by threatening to remove his advertising. 
So if the Board can play hardball when it suits, why won’t they do that all the time. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

13 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

You missed the whole point. 
 

Why do we need to get to that extreme, you say the scum have partnerships with the media so they get things done. 
Dougie Park got a story about a fellow board member retracted at the drop of a hat by threatening to remove his advertising. 
So if the Board can play hardball when it suits, why won’t they do that all the time. 

So the scum act whilst Rangers Board don't was the initial argument.  

You've given an example, interestingly where our Board member had to threaten with his own private business matters. I've given an example where the Board and C1872 acted. Yet there's only assumption the scum acted (I assume so too btw) but nothing factual, it could as easily have been a pro taig editor didn't like what he saw and removed the scum reference in the title 

So 2 examples of our Board acting, no proof of scum Board doing so, yet our Board are the ones being criticised in an industry where previously you too have commented on how much we're despised.

Maybe it's just easier to default to criticising the Board regardless of if they're at fault or not.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So the scum act whilst Rangers Board don't was the initial argument.  

You've given an example, interestingly where our Board member had to threaten with his own private business matters. I've given an example where the Board and C1872 acted. Yet there's only assumption the scum acted (I assume so too btw) but nothing factual, it could as easily have been a pro taig editor didn't like what he saw and removed the scum reference in the title 

So 2 examples of our Board acting, no proof of scum Board doing so, yet our Board are the ones being criticised in an industry where previously you too have commented on how much we're despised.

Maybe it's just easier to default to criticising the Board regardless of if they're at fault or not.

Again when they want it done it’s done. 
When they aren’t to bothered they let 1872 take months to get a retraction printed in the corner of page 27. 
The rest just get allowed to slide past and we get the usual crap oh we can’t fight every bad piece of press, ehh well yes you can have a look at the Scum across the city. 
 

Scum FC get the story changed while it’s still headline news ffs. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Again when they want it done it’s done. 
When they aren’t to bothered they let 1872 take months to get a retraction printed in the corner of page 27. 
The rest just get allowed to slide past and we get the usual crap oh we can’t fight every bad piece of press, ehh well yes you can have a look at the Scum across the city. 
 

Scum FC get the story changed while it’s still headline news ffs. 

Nonsense, they didnt let 1872 take that time, that was the time it took due to the Rhebels continued denials and defences. Or do you mean Park should have stepped up and used his business matters as threats again? Is that the solution for the club that a Director risks a strategy he deems successful in his own business to come to Rangers defence continually?

Do you think both clubs are treated equally by the media in terms of the content they put out and how issues raised by the 2 clubs are addressed by them? If you do you're deluded. If you dont then its absurd to use the one barometer as a measure for the actions of the biased press in responding to issues raised by the clubs (one they like, one they hate). Absurd.

[magic8ball 27,901]

18 hours ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

Peter Lawwell gets journalists sacked, we just ban them from Ibrox for a few months then let them back in. 

Even when he bans them it’s covered up 

Kheevins was banned from probably about the last 3 years as a print journalist for criticism of the board for not backing popcorn teeth ,

When he retired from the Rhebel his ban was revoked and he was allowed back in ,Remember him talking about the ban belong lifted and claiming not to know why he was even banned in the first place 

Wee lying Ned Flanders tribute act cunt ,he knew why he was banned Awrite coz it was out his very own mouth that I heard why he had got banned at the time 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

5 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Nonsense, they didnt let 1872 take that time, that was the time it took due to the Rhebels continued denials and defences. Or do you mean Park should have stepped up and used his business matters as threats again? Is that the solution for the club that a Director risks a strategy he deems successful in his own business to come to Rangers defence continually?

Do you think both clubs are treated equally by the media in terms of the content they put out and how issues raised by the 2 clubs are addressed by them? If you do you're deluded. If you dont then its absurd to use the one barometer as a measure for the actions of the biased press in responding to issues raised by the clubs (one they like, one they hate). Absurd.

Yes, The Directors should use any influence they have at their disposal to protect the club, 

No both clubs aren’t treated equally, when it comes to the initial reporting and any follow up. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Yes, The Directors should use any influence they have at their disposal to protect the club, 

No both clubs aren’t treated equally, when it comes to the initial reporting and any follow up. 

Ok.

So we're not treated equally. The scum may or may not have got their name removed from the article by their MSM pals. We had to fight for an ipso victory over lies by our MSM haters. A director has had to risk aspects of his personal business to influence the press previously.

And despite this it's the Rangers Board over the scum one being criticised

 

[16BlueSherbert90 19,223]

I personally know a couple of journalists and they have mentioned that the editors are more the issue rather than Liewell making any type of calls.

They could write a factual story like OPs and if the (Taig)editor decides there are "not enough" facts to print or they suddenly realise what's been posted on the Internet. ..they will take it down.  Some Internet journos deliberately post things up quickly as they know it will be screenshot to get "word" round.

I don't trust journalists to talk news to them, however I do know this happens. 

 

[Gaffbear 4,096]

This shows we need substantial investment by someone who takes no shite .

We're lagging behind them and were fighting on numerous fronts 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

10 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Ok.

So we're not treated equally. The scum may or may not have got their name removed from the article by their MSM pals. We had to fight for an ipso victory over lies by our MSM haters. A director has had to risk aspects of his personal business to influence the press previously.

And despite this it's the Rangers Board over the scum one being criticised

 

Mate if you believe this Board and past Boards have protected the Club to the best of their ability then I feel for you I really do. 

[16BlueSherbert90 19,223]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Mate if you believe this Board and past Boards have protected the Club to the best of their ability then I feel for you I really do. 

There is definitely room for vast improvement, I agree. 

 Hopefully we will see more effort:) 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, 16BlueSherbert90 said:

There is definitely room for vast improvement, I agree. 

 Hopefully we will see more effort:) 

It’s not much to ask of them. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

9 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Mate if you believe this Board and past Boards have protected the Club to the best of their ability then I feel for you I really do. 

Not once said that, and I dont believe it to be the case either. But I think the criticism held against them here is unfair.

[DMax399 3,688]

PR opportunity there for the club.  Release a statement saying that a Cel**c fan has been arrested for breaking and entering/ trespassing or whatever.  He filmed himself wearing the filths clobber so there can be no denial. It is a fact.