Friendly v Thistle

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

8 hours ago, The Dude said:

The one on one with Gerrard is a potential conflict. The suggestion is that with the potential number of outlets getting 'exclusive' access, there will be times where it directly impacts sky's exclusivity. 

Fair enough. Don’t know the ins and outs of the TV deal but I’d be surprised if it gets to that. 

[KaiserJon 12,393]

I don't understand why the club have done this in all honesty. 

[graeme_4 34,527]

1 hour ago, KaiserJon said:

I don't understand why the club have done this in all honesty. 

To make money. To change the media narrative / one up them in a power struggle. To hold outlets to account more. 

[MaddistonKnight 1,567]

17 hours ago, The Dude said:

Aye, the Daily Mail is a renowned pro celtic/SNP paper.

 

Its most definitely not pro Rangers,  and I say that as a regular reader. McGreechan is a wank, for example. 

[The Dude 20,026]

19 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

To make money. To change the media narrative / one up them in a power struggle. To hold outlets to account more. 

It won't change the media narrative though. Nobody is going to suddenly change their opinion because they paid 25k for access. IIn what way would it hold outlets to account more?

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, MaddistonKnight said:

Its most definitely not pro Rangers,  and I say that as a regular reader. Greechan is a wank, for example. 

Ive had the pleasure of covering games with him a few times. He's a fucking knob.

[MaddistonKnight 1,567]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Ive had the pleasure of covering games with him a few times. He's a fucking knob.

Thanks for the correction!

Good to know i called him correctly. One of them?

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, MaddistonKnight said:

Thanks for the correction!

Good to know i called him correctly. One of them?

Raith Rovers. And by fuck does he let you know about it.

[graeme_4 34,527]

36 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It won't change the media narrative though. Nobody is going to suddenly change their opinion because they paid 25k for access. IIn what way would it hold outlets to account more?

Might make them think twice about having their credentials pulled (and £25k down the swanny) for writing lies and bile? 

Maybe holding them to account was a bad turn of phrase, but attempting to ensure that they are more respectful in what they communicate about our club. 

I get you’re put out by it, but the reality is you’ve used the Rangers brand to build a career / income (as have many others) and the club are well within their rights to want a contribution for it - particularly when some of those that profit from Rangers do nothing but attempt to undermine the club. 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,730]

1 hour ago, graeme_4 said:

To make money. To change the media narrative / one up them in a power struggle. To hold outlets to account more. 

It's not going to change any 'narrative'. If anything it's going to get a low worse.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

Might make them think twice about having their credentials pulled (and £25k down the swanny) for writing lies and bile? 

Maybe holding them to account was a bad turn of phrase, but attempting to ensure that they are more respectful in what they communicate about our club. 

I get you’re put out by it, but the reality is you’ve used the Rangers brand to build a career / income (as have many others) and the club are well within their rights to want a contribution for it - particularly when some of those that profit from Rangers do nothing but attempt to undermine the club. 

25k isn't going to have any influence that way to companies like Reach (record) or News UK (Sun) who both recorded in excess on 100m in profits last year. Those who profit from the club would still be able to continue to undermine the club whether they pay for access or not. I don't think Keevins, for example, has attended a game as a reporter in the best part of 20 years. How does a lack of access stop him taking shots at Rangers? Same with Jackson. He's not at games doing match reports. A lack of access to Ibrox doesn't stop him being a cunt.

Should media outlets now bill clubs for their advertising space (vastly outstripping anything the club will make from charging for access) since the club have grown their brand on the back of it for free for years? The club get quite  hefty contribution in that regard across media. Do you think sponsors pay to have their brand seen by what would effectively be a closed shop of RTV and H&H subs (totalling probably no more than around 100k) or also for the wider exposure that comes by seen by literally millions of readers across the 'mainstream media'?

How does the club engage with new fans in new markets if the only way you can hear what is going on at Rangers is subscribing to content behind a paywall? What would stop a journo from taking out an RTV sub (worth considerably less than 25k) and just using the quotes as they are able to do so and give away Rangers' paid content for free anyway?

 

[Dan Deacon 55,223]

Simon Jordan is backing it on talksport

[graeme_4 34,527]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

25k isn't going to have any influence that way to companies like Reach (record) or News UK (Sun) who both recorded in excess on 100m in profits last year. Those who profit from the club would still be able to continue to undermine the club whether they pay for access or not. I don't think Keevins, for example, has attended a game as a reporter in the best part of 20 years. How does a lack of access stop him taking shots at Rangers? Same with Jackson. He's not at games doing match reports. A lack of access to Ibrox doesn't stop him being a cunt.

Should media outlets now bill clubs for their advertising space (vastly outstripping anything the club will make from charging for access) since the club have grown their brand on the back of it for free for years? The club get quite  hefty contribution in that regard across media. Do you think sponsors pay to have their brand seen by what would effectively be a closed shop of RTV and H&H subs (totalling probably no more than around 100k) or also for the wider exposure that comes by seen by literally millions of readers across the 'mainstream media'?

How does the club engage with new fans in new markets if the only way you can hear what is going on at Rangers is subscribing to content behind a paywall? What would stop a journo from taking out an RTV sub (worth considerably less than 25k) and just using the quotes as they are able to do so and give away Rangers' paid content for free anyway?

 

As I said, I get you’re put out by it, but the reality is you’ve used the Rangers brand to build a career / income (as have many others) and the club are well within their rights to want a contribution for it - particularly when some of those that profit from Rangers do nothing but attempt to undermine the club. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, graeme_4 said:

As I said, I get you’re put out by it, but the reality is you’ve used the Rangers brand to build a career / income (as have many others) and the club are well within their rights to want a contribution for it - particularly when some of those that profit from Rangers do nothing but attempt to undermine the club. 

I've been effectively banned from Ibrox for a year now anyway so I wouldnt say I'm particularly put out. The club already get a contribution for access in the form of free advertising, brand exposure (way in excess of 25k worth at that).

You seem to have ignored the point that those who continually undermine the club will continue to do so, access or not. Many of them don't attend game anyway (Keevins, Jackson) so no access to Gerrard/players will have literally zero influence on them.

[Dennis Reynolds 1,329]

Rangers have 630,000 people on Twitter, a decent % of them will offer free advertising and brand exposure most weeks. 

Vast majority of people don't give a shit about the "media" these days anyway. 

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

Rangers have 630,000 people on Twitter, a decent % of them will offer free advertising and brand exposure most weeks. 

Vast majority of people don't give a shit about the "media" these days anyway. 

Sky Sports have 15m across @SkySportsNews and @SkySportsFootball.

 

[Dennis Reynolds 1,329]

15 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Sky Sports have 15m across @SkySportsNews and @SkySportsFootball.

 

most of those punters will be encouraged to watch us on the box v Livvy, and again the week after v Dundee United, things that are actually worth a shit rather than random opinion pieces. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

most of those punters will be encouraged to watch us on the box v Livvy, and again the week after v Dundee United, things that are actually worth a shit rather than random opinion pieces. 

Not for much longer (potentially) if this is pushed ahead with.

Even on RangersNews we've had just over two million unique users so far this year. If every single Rangers FC follower on Twitter is included in that, that's 1.4 MILLION "customers" that Rangers themselves aren't currently reaching possibly and possibly closing off from with content effectively only available behind certain paywalls.

[Dennis Reynolds 1,329]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Not for much longer (potentially) if this is pushed ahead with.

Even on RangersNews we've had just over two million unique users so far this year. If every single Rangers FC follower on Twitter is included in that, that's 1.4 MILLION "customers" that Rangers themselves aren't currently reaching possibly and possibly closing off from with content effectively only available behind certain paywalls.

to the point in bold 

you are only kidding yourself with the second point 

I enjoy NBA, I like teams like the LA Lakers, the thing I know first is of the LA Lakers not LA Lakers news websites. 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

13 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

to the point in bold 

you are only kidding yourself with the second point 

I enjoy NBA, I like teams like the LA Lakers, the thing I know first is of the LA Lakers not LA Lakers news websites. 

 

How so? The various sites that cover Rangers worldwide have a far wider reach than the club's own network. If you want to try reach new customers, you can't just speak to your existing ones. Given that there's no external media who have paid (or are likely to) how do you propose we engage new fans?

If the only news you could get about the LA LAkers was behind a paywall because they charged media for access, how much do you think you'd know about the LA Lakers? You taking subs out for their fan media and in-house TV on the off-chance you like it?

[Dennis Reynolds 1,329]

Just now, The Dude said:

How so? The various sites that cover Rangers worldwide have a far wider reach than the club's own network. If you want to try reach new customers, you can't just speak to your existing ones. Given that there's no external media who have paid (or are likely to) how do you propose we engage new fans?

If the only news you could get about the LA LAkers was behind a paywall because they charged media for access, how much do you think you'd know about the LA Lakers? You taking subs out for their fan media and in-house TV on the off-chance you like it?

but not the actual club, people don't support Rangers because of sites like RangersNews....think you are overreaching what the profession is a bit, such sites exist because of Rangers, not the other way around. 

RE The Lakers, new content etc 

The same way I do now, it is modern world, easy enough to engage and interact with fans online these days and find out club news, use resources and outlets I find of use, there are plenty of them these days.

Fans can create their own "media" and news outlets and do that without any "official club news" or a press lanyard. 

The majority of news the actual Lakers release (like most sports teams and I include Rangers) is pish if I am being honest, it is typically fan media which drives chat I find interesting, and it is fans who don't have access (or need access) to press conferences or games, so it makes no difference to me where they report it from. 

The notion ALL engagement is going behind a paywall is also a bit far fetched TBH, that is bit reaching to try and make it look like the club are just going to shit on all fan engagement new, or old and they quite clearly are not. 

There are very few journalists who have covered Rangers over the years I have given much of a fuck for, I will manage on OK without reading random opinion pieces from them if they are kept out the club, self proclaimed experts,

It's a dying profession I am afraid, folks just don't place journalists on much a pedestal these days, more so with sport, I don't need to be told how to think about Rangers by someone like Hugh Keevins anymore so couldn't really care less if he has to pay to get access to the club. 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Dennis Reynolds said:

but not the actual club, people don't support Rangers because of sites like RangersNews....think you are overreaching what the profession is a bit, such sites exist because of Rangers, not the other way around. 

RE The Lakers, new content etc 

The same way I do now, it is modern world, easy enough to engage and interact with fans online these days and find out club news, use resources and outlets I find of use, there are plenty of them these days.

Fans can create their own "media" and news outlets and do that without any "official club news" or a press lanyard. 

The majority of news the actual Lakers release (like most sports teams and I include Rangers) is pish if I am being honest, it is typically fan media which drives chat I find interesting, and it is fans who don't have access (or need access) to press conferences or games, so it makes no difference to me where they report it from. 

The notion ALL engagement is going behind a paywall is also a bit far fetched TBH, that is bit reaching to try and make it look like the club are just going to shit on all fan engagement new, or old and they quite clearly are not. 

There are very few journalists who have covered Rangers over the years I have given much of a fuck for, I will manage on OK without reading random opinion pieces from them if they are kept out the club, self proclaimed experts,

It's a dying profession I am afraid, folks just don't place journalists on much a pedestal these days, more so with sport, I don't need to be told how to think about Rangers by someone like Hugh Keevins anymore so couldn't really care less if he has to pay to get access to the club. 

 

Keevins not having access wouldn't change a single thing about his job. He doesn't attend games or pressers and hasn't done so for years (other than the odd Celtic one). Most stuff you'll read from opinion columnist like Keevins all comes from guys who don't attend games to work.

I don't quite get why you emphaise the opinion writers a few times they are largely irrelevant to it all. Jackson will continue to take shots at Rangers regardless of if the Record pay 25k or not.

You may well not have much interest in news and quote-led content but literally millions of others do.

There may well be plenty of outlets covering the lakers just now, if they were to start charging access for reporters, that would quickly dry up.

Sites like RangersNews etc absolutely do only exist because of the club but external media will continue to go on regardless of whether they have access to Rangers or not. For many, external media, be that papers, TV, radio etc, is their first exposure to the club and helps to build their interest.

There's also the angle of asking questions that in-house media simply won't. Do you think Nick Thompson is going to ask Gerrard difficult questions if we lose the first Old Firm game? While a lot of the guys at pressers now are shite, there are usually some interesting Qs asked (particularly post-match).

[Dennis Reynolds 1,329]

Just now, The Dude said:

Keevins not having access wouldn't change a single thing about his job. He doesn't attend games or pressers and hasn't done so for years (other than the odd celtic one). Most stuff you'll read from opinion columnist like Keevins all comes from guys who don't attend games to work.

I don't quite get why you emphaise the opinion writers a few times they are largely irrelevant to it all. Jackson will continue to take shots at Rangers regardless of if the Record pay 25k or not.

You may well not have much interest in news and quote-led content but literally millions of others do.

There may well be plenty of outlets covering the lakers just now, if they were to start charging access for reporters, that would quickly dry up.

Sites like RangersNews etc absolutely do only exist because of the club but external media will continue to go on regardless of whether they have access to Rangers or not. For many, external media, be that papers, TV, radio etc, is their first exposure to the club and helps to build their interest.

There's also the angle of asking questions that in-house media simply won't. Do you think Nick Thompson is going to ask Gerrard difficult questions if we lose the first Old Firm game? While a lot of the guys at pressers now are shite, there are usually some interesting Qs asked (particularly post-match).

grand, so it doesn't matter a fuck they are there or not. 

it would still be there.... you are creating a false opposition proposing that will go away. 

rarely

 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Dennis Reynolds said:

grand, so it doesn't matter a fuck they are there or not. 

it would still be there.... you are creating a false opposition proposing that will go away. 

rarely

 

Keevins and Jackson? no, it wouldn't matter a jot. Believe it or not, they aren't the entire Scottish media. You've confused (deliberately or otherwise) two guys who don't cover games with the many others who do.

[Dennis Reynolds 1,329]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Keevins and Jackson? no, it wouldn't matter a jot. Believe it or not, they aren't the entire Scottish media. You've confused (deliberately or otherwise) two guys who don't cover games with the many others who do.

all cheeks of the same shitey arse IMO.