Sheer hypocrisy from the Times

The Golden God said:
I see Ruth Davidson is sticking up for them now.

Plenty of people will have voted for her in the past. Just another self serving scumbag of a politician. None of them are our friends, no matter how much they pretend to be on social media.

Very little between James Dornan and Murdo Fraser imo.
Click to expand...

She backed Spiers against the club. An absolute arsehole of a woman.
 
Oh this is hilarious. I'm loving this.

They actually think we need them when it's really the opposite way round. And they're making up so much p!sh to try and convince themselves and everyone else otherwise. And Rangers are the arrogant ones? Bwahah. It's Rangers full of hubris? :D

Theate critics ffs. Next we'll be hearing some batshit crazy analogy about how Parks bus drivers wouldn't like to have to pay to do their jobs or some other straw man mental gymnastic idiocy :))

They are actually justifying Rangers position and don't even realise it. Tying themselves in knots as usual.
 
I’m starting to think this was Rangers game plan, self banning of the media. £25k doesn’t sound like a lot but if everyone does it!!! BOOM!
it means the club actually gave them a choice so it looks relatively fair, all the while knowing that the wouldn’t touch it.
well
Played Rangers, well played!!
 
1BrianLaudrup said:
"A disputed episode that required good, objective reporting"? Sounds like George Square and the Sweet Caroline video. The Scottish media chose instead to lie and enable powerful politicians to distort reality and push an agenda.

No self-respecting theatre or concert hall would let critics come in for free if they went and wrote reviews slandering the venue, describing shows as "anti-Irish racism" without justification etc.

It's not Rangers that need a dose of humility. Last paragraph is just demented.
Click to expand...
He is deliberately trying to muddy the waters by talking about the racist abuse Kamara received. If that happened today they could still report on it freely and be as objective as they desired to be. Rangers are not saying "you cannot talk about us unless you pay".
 
The Golden God said:
I see Ruth Davidson is sticking up for them now.

Plenty of people will have voted for her in the past. Just another self serving scumbag of a politician. None of them are our friends, no matter how much they pretend to be on social media.

Very little between James Dornan and Murdo Fraser imo.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm sorry but that's a major exaggeration right there. :D
 
EH47 said:
Lol, I'm sorry but that's a major exaggeration right there. :D
Click to expand...

To you maybe but in the real world its not.

We are being used by specific politicians in this country for votes. I seem to remember a couple of apparent Rangers supporting Conservative politicians putting the boot in over George Square.

As I said, self serving scumbags. Nothing will convince me otherwise.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
Would the expectation be that fan media also pay the 25 grand?
Click to expand...
It's £10k, with £25k giving access to exclusive interviews.

If the charge is to stand up to any sort of scrutiny, fan media should also have to pay this. Otherwise you have situations like the Rangers Review setup where Newsquest have created so called "fan media" which could be used to circumvent the bill they would be expected to pay if they applied as Glasgow Times. Since the content is created for Newsgroup, they would be entitled to use it across any of their products including Glasgow Times.

What would stop the Daily Record or The Times getting a few well known Twitter followers to contribute to a new website and then post snippets or the full things on the papers?
 
luckywhitefeather said:
Personally I find this charging policy short sighted by Rangers

it may very well play well with hardcore support but for the general public & club trying to reach new fans the 20k is small beer.

I do also wonder what our sponsors think of it? Are they going to be happy with less pictures of Rangers strips with their logos no being in the paper? What is the knock on effect to our potential value on that?

much like the policy with the bbc & not giving McLaughlin a press pass this just harms Rangers / makes it easier for us to be pigeonholed / silenced in the corner and then no wonder we are continually fire fighting / trying to fight the Rangers corner from behind the eight ball

people may say %^*& them , I prefer fan media etc etc but that doesn’t take into consideration the wider world ,

it should be concerning to Rangers and all fans that for example there is no report on the Real Madrid game on the bbc website

Rangers should be embracing all forms of media , getting as much press out there as possible, shouting from the rooftops about the glory of this club, using the media to get our message across ( be it even about ticketing / covid safety etc for the friendlies we’ve had)

Diplomacy & working with the media will get this club a lot further in the long run
Click to expand...
Diplomacy!?!
How did reaching out to the bbc over the last couple of years go?
You should read the pacific quay thread on gersnet which gives a very meaningful insight to that’s mobs thinking.
 
DeeCeeTee said:
It's £10k, with £25k giving access to exclusive interviews.

If the charge is to stand up to any sort of scrutiny, fan media should also have to pay this. Otherwise you have situations like the Rangers Review setup where Newsquest have created so called "fan media" which could be used to circumvent the bill they would be expected to pay if they applied as Glasgow Times. Since the content is created for Newsgroup, they would be entitled to use it across any of their products including Glasgow Times.

What would stop the Daily Record or The Times getting a few well known Twitter followers to contribute to a new website and then post snippets or the full things on the papers?
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks.

You're right about the issues with circumvention, and I've no idea about their respective finances, but are Rangers not risking fan media in the form of FF and HaH missing out on information from the club, these being the very sources that have replaced more traditional forms of journalism that can and will probably pay for access?
 
ClockworkOrange said:
Gotcha, thanks.

You're right about the issues with circumvention, and I've no idea about their respective finances, but are Rangers not risking fan media in the form of FF and HaH missing out on information from the club, these being the very sources that have replaced more traditional forms of journalism that can and will probably pay for access?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how it would work out, and personally I would like it if it was only the likes of FF or H&H and a few paying media outlets at the press conferences. Realistically though, it will be difficult to say H&H for instance can get in for free as they're real fan media, but Glasgow Times have to pay, despite them also having Rangers Review as a fan outlet, which David Edgar looks to also be contributing to.
 
When the news came out about charging media for access I was a bit surprised. Mostly because of the sums involved, which seem steep and that’s ultimately what irks Magnus Linklater and the other newspaper editors. His column today proves that because the arguments he puts forward are disingenuous in the extreme.

Take the bit about Kamara for example. What role did the media play in exposing Kudela? Everyone who watched it could see what happened. If the media were paying for access to Ibrox on that night, what would have been different? We would still have issued our statements about it, Kamara his, Slavia Prague theirs and the subsequent footage that followed. UEFA would still have investigated and the outcome would still have been the same. If there is an underlying threat that journalists would be less inclined to be supportive in any similar future incident because they are being charged for access then that says far more about them than it does the Club.

Then there’s the bit about theatre critics. It’s an obvious comparison to make but it’s still a poor one. Those industries rely on the reviews of critics to drum up interest in their productions. Football is a different beast entirely. The correlation between Ranger season ticket sales and media coverage of our performances is zero. If Magnus wants proof of that he should check how many tickets we were selling around the time of the Stirling Albion game he references.
 
Morty said:
Ruth has always loved having a pop at us. No surprise.
Click to expand...
I agree with you it's not the first time she's had a pop at us but I just can't work out why ? She's not a fool by any stretch and must be aware that a large amount of Rangers supporter's are Pro union and a lot of us are also conservative voter's.
 
DeeCeeTee said:
I'm not sure how it would work out, and personally I would like it if it was only the likes of FF or H&H and a few paying media outlets at the press conferences. Realistically though, it will be difficult to say H&H for instance can get in for free as they're real fan media, but Glasgow Times have to pay, despite them also having Rangers Review as a fan outlet, which David Edgar looks to also be contributing to.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see - unless concessions are made for Rangers fan-based media - it's actually a far more nuanced issue than the perception that we're sticking two fingers up to our enemies.

Conversations about charging MSM for access to Ibrox are one thing but if this comes at the expense of having Rangers fan-based media then we're in a situation where fans who have stated that this is the form of media that they rely upon essentially lose this as a result of the club trying to monetise media presence at Ibrox.

It's actually a bit of a catch 22.
 
L/COLNEYBEAR said:
I agree with you it's not the first time she's had a pop at us but I just can't work out why ? She's not a fool by any stretch and must be aware that a large amount of Rangers supporter's are Pro union and a lot of us are also conservative voter's.
Click to expand...
She's part of the 'chattering class', you know, the political and media types that think they are so much haughtier, more intelligent and more reasonable than us knuckle draggers:rolleyes:
 
bilkobear said:
Talk of hubris by a legacy press that is no longer trusted by the general public is highly amusing.
The claim of freedom of the press as some sort of right is highly contentious when we are faced with a dishonest press that skews the news by obfuscation, omission, and sometimes outright lies to suit their own agenda.

The insinuations throughout the article about Ranger's previous problems in 2012 are a case in point.
The reporting by the press all the way through these matters was often one of exaggeration and hyperbole, all of it negative.
The agenda seemed to be one designed to open any wounds that became visible and one might have been forgiven believing that the press were delighted to heap problems upon the shoulders of the club some of them often imagined by the press themselves.

In the last thirty years, the Scottish press have been dishonest in their reporting of the club.
Always emphasising the negative whilst playing down or often ignoring the positive.
This type of drip-drip has been wholly to the detriment of the club as a business and to the support as a community.
On the other hand for a comparison, we have seen how they have dealt with their favourite club where the opposite has been the order of the day.
One need look no further than how they manage news about the biggest scandal that should have rocked Scottish sport but has been suppressed at every turn by a compliant and disgustingly agenda confirmed press.

The author talks about humility or lack of it at our club.
To have the Scottish press dare to lecture us on humility is up there with Peter Sutcliffe offering a lesson on violence against women.

The press don't exist to inform or report on the news fairly any longer, they cannot be trusted as even brokers in the matters surrounding Rangers, nor indeed much else.
The BBC are indeed just the most obvious example of the rest, but in truth, they are all much the same.

The claim is that the new policy of Rangers will be to the detriment of the fans.
As one fictional old manager of the England national team would have said, ... 'My arse!'
Click to expand...
Well said as we know the press these days cause more division in society than anything never let facts get in the way of good story seem the motto.
 
prenzlauerbear said:
This has been an exceptional sporting summer: The British Lions’ pulsating victory in South Africa. Adam Peaty heading for gold in Tokyo. Novak Djokovic claiming a record-equalling 20th Grand Slam at Wimbledon. Collin Morikawa winning the Open golf championship on his debut. I would like to add the start of the football season in Scotland. Except there is a sour taste to it.

Last season brought one of the most remarkable resurrections in the history of the Scottish game. Rangers, a club mired for years in financial scandal, insolvency, and a humiliating demotion to the third division, completed their return to the heights of the premiership by winning the title — their first in ten years. Under a brilliant manager, Steven Gerrard, they have turned their fortunes around.

That comeback was reported, daily and in detail, on the back pages of every Scottish newspaper. Not any more. Rangers are proposing that coverage should be paid for. Not a pound or so, but big money. Newspapers will be asked for £25,000 for the privilege of reporting team news. That would allow one reporter and one photographer to attend matches and pre-match press conferences, and buy five exclusive interviews and a sit-down briefing with the manager. For £10,000 they would have access to the club, and one “exclusive” story. The media would be expected to pay for news — a concept that runs counter to the whole concept of freedom of the press. The response from newspapers can best be described as “cool”. One hopes the proposal will be thrown out with much the same disdain as the “super league” put forward by European clubs who ignored the interests of their fans in the interest of profit.

It is an arrogant policy. It assumes that such is the power of a club that has forced itself to the head of the premiership, newspapers will be prepared to join an exclusive club within which information will be shared. That information, of course, will be controlled by Rangers. One has to assume that the privileged briefings and interviews will be entirely at the behest of the club’s executives. Independent scrutiny will go out of the window.

This is not only about making money, it is about the power to manage news and ensure that it is positive. For a club that has only just emerged from the mire, this is hubris of a high degree.
Rangers may be enjoying a one-year high, but who is to say it will be maintained? A manager departs, say, the wins drop away, suspicions grow that the bosses are withholding investment in good players. Who is there to probe for the truth, when every reporter is inside the bubble?
The club seems unaware of all this. It argues that as television pays high fees for coverage, so should newspapers. But there is a crucial difference. Coverage of live games on TV is a boost to ratings, which have a commercial value. Newspapers are giving readers an insight into where the club stands. When, for instance, yesterday’s friendly against Real Madrid is reported, there will be no question-and-answer with the manager, no discussion about tactics or team choices. Any comments will have to be gleaned from Rangers TV, controlled by the club itself.
What is depressing is to note the complete lack of comment from the Scottish Professional Football League — the body that governs the national men’s association football league. Its own rules say there must be media access, but it has, so far as I can see, said nothing about all this. If Rangers have their way and some news organisations accept their terms, this will be the thin end of an almighty wedge, with Celtic possibly willing to join in, and then the other powerful clubs signing on.

The club argues that in the era of social media, fans and their organisations have a far wider reach than newspapers. Better by far to restrict access to supporters — that way favourable coverage can be guaranteed. The fans agree. They have a low opinion of the press, which reports bad news as well as the good. That can change, however, and if an independent voice is excluded, who will represent the interests of fans when they demand answers to what has gone wrong?
A good example is the Europa League incident in which the Czech player Ondrej Kudela was accused of racially abusing the Rangers player Glen Kamara. A disputed episode that required good, objective reporting, it would have been, under Rangers’ new terms, confined to a club-controlled statement, with no investigation of the circumstances, or the rebuttal from Kudela. One-sided news is no news at all.

Football is entertainment as well as spectacle. No self-respecting theatre, concert hall or pop venue would consider charging critics for access. Pretty soon the notices would dry up and the audiences dwindle. In England, where clubs would quite fancy charging newspapers, the argument has got nowhere. Nor should it in Scotland.

Rangers would do well to remember an ancient virtue called humility. It is less than ten years since the club was downgraded to the third division, where it lost 1–0 to Stirling Albion, then the bottom club in the country. Success is never guaranteed; a downward spiral can occur in the blink of an eye. Best perhaps to remember that old adage about pride coming before a fall.
Click to expand...
Jesus.

When was the last trad media article actually discussing tactics or team selections?

Look at the content from H&H - we get a match preview (usually 90mins) discussing both teams and likely setups etc, the pre and post match shows from Ibrox, the car pod/post match, the flagship which breaks down the game and then the tactics pod later in the week.

What do the insightful press give us?
 
fmp said:
He is deliberately trying to muddy the waters by talking about the racist abuse Kamara received. If that happened today they could still report on it freely and be as objective as they desired to be. Rangers are not saying "you cannot talk about us unless you pay".
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm also not sure the Scottish press did an awful lot of actual investigation into what happened with Kamara. They saw what happened like we all did and more or less faithfully reported the post-incident statements from each club.

Then two months later they let Humza Yousaf and James f#$n Dornan get away with putting a target on the back of Kamara and other Rangers players over a fake TikTok video, no questions asked about a sinister abuse of power or manipulation of the police force. Could have used a bit of objectivity there.
 
TinyRick said:
Jesus.

When was the last trad media article actually discussing tactics or team selections?

Look at the content from H&H - we get a match preview (usually 90mins) discussing both teams and likely setups etc, the pre and post match shows from Ibrox, the car pod/post match, the flagship which breaks down the game and then the tactics pod later in the week.

What do the insightful press give us?
Click to expand...

But unless fan providers like H&H pay the money as well, we're going to miss out on some - not all, right enough - of the content that they currently provide.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
If only Derek & the other hypocrites reported with objectivity & insight in ‘their industry’ this might not have happened.

Why should Rangers Football Club effectively ‘pay’ them to attack our club very often with no foundation ?
Click to expand...
Everything they say about Rangers is a diagnosis of their own problems. It's not us who are shrinking to a niche fan base
 
25k ... well that`s a language they`ll understand. For the best part of the last 2 decades, the m(h)edia in Scotland has taken all the freedom the press always demands, but hardly ever shown a responsibility that comes with it. Neutrality, unbiased, balanced, you name it.

As an aside ... do other clubs in Britain charge the media too?
 
Der Berliner said:
25k ... well that`s a language they`ll understand. For the best part of the last 2 decades, the m(h)edia in Scotland has taken all the freedom the press always demands, but hardly ever shown a responsibility that comes with it. Neutrality, unbiased, balanced, you name it.

As an aside ... do other clubs in Britain charge the media too?
Click to expand...

Reading that Twitter thread it makes me think we're the only ones? Not sure.
 
ibroxbound said:
Have you been asleep for the past 10 years?
Click to expand...
I’ve not been asleep in fact it just shows you how well Murray used the mainstream media to control the narrative up to his end days / how Whyte was able to operate in his early days by giving easy exclusives / access which was by and large how he managed to hoodwink the majority of the support.

we can go round in circles on this , the general Rangers public are not on Follow Follow, not subscribing to heart & hand (and that’s no harm to either of those outlets) people consume their news in all manner of ways (and through media I certainly wouldn’t be buying) but that’s not to say Rangers shouldn’t have a presence and be doing everything to reach new fans

do you really not think that the tims use of the media has been highly beneficial to them the last decade?
Lawwell just doing what Murray did (and his lawwell political manoeuvring in soft / sfa / Europe

We are failing to actually address the big issue here regarding the media / public perception / political life in Scotland in 2021 which is the conduct and behaviour of section of our support which gives Rangers a constant pr problem, the idea we are going to get a better shake of things in the future after we’ve fucked off the press for the sake of 20k is laughable
 
Last edited:
ClockworkOrange said:
As far as I can see - unless concessions are made for Rangers fan-based media - it's actually a far more nuanced issue than the perception that we're sticking two fingers up to our enemies.

Conversations about charging MSM for access to Ibrox are one thing but if this comes at the expense of having Rangers fan-based media then we're in a situation where fans who have stated that this is the form of media that they rely upon essentially lose this as a result of the club trying to monetise media presence at Ibrox.

It's actually a bit of a catch 22.
Click to expand...
That's how I see it.

I just can't see what set of rules could be put in place by the club that would differentiate Rangers Review from Glasgow Times, with Newsquest ultimately getting access to press conferences, ability to sell subscriptions and advertising space based on that Rangers content, and not have to pay anything for the privilege.

If this is about brand protection and companies making money off of Ranger's name and brand (which it seems to be given the push against logos on uniforms etc), then either everyone has to pay, or nobody does.
 
Coatbridge Chancellor said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1419629668811083788

This whole thread man! B-)B-D:))
'Rangers will shrink to having a niche fan base because fans won't be able to read the papers'
Click to expand...
Nice to see another journalist struggling with the concept of social media.

It’s not 2003, anymore social media exists, we do need newspapers to tell us what is going on.

The papers have, John Hartson, Chris Sutton, Frank McAvennie, Keith Jackson, spew Keevins trying to talk about in Scotland, what do they really contribute?
 
This would obviously depend on the terms of the deal but would this not potentially create a quid pro quo with the media wherein they can demand the right to ask certain questions in interviews and if denied withdraw their funding? They keep their money and can continue to write about us, we don't get their money - is this not preferable for them?
 
ClockworkOrange said:
But unless fan providers like H&H pay the money as well, we're going to miss out on some - not all, right enough - of the content that they currently provide.
Click to expand...
H&H Have said they have no issue with paying for access, so straight away, we ain't losing anything from them.

I don't think it's unreasonable that if someone looks to profit from our club, the club should receive a fee of some sort.

I'd also have no issue with any organisation paying the fee passing it on to their customers - if H&H want to jack up each tier by an extra 40p a month (25k/12/5312 subscribers) to cover the annual charge then I reckon the overwhelming majority would have no issue with that. Equally, if the papers are confident their football content is what sustains them, then doing the same won't hurt them either.
 
TinyRick said:
H&H Have said they have no issue with paying for access, so straight away, we ain't losing anything from them.

I don't think it's unreasonable that if someone looks to profit from our club, the club should receive a fee of some sort.

I'd also have no issue with any organisation paying the fee passing it on to their customers - if H&H want to jack up each tier by an extra 40p a month (25k/12/5312 subscribers) to cover the annual charge then I reckon the overwhelming majority would have no issue with that. Equally, if the papers are confident their football content is what sustains them, then doing the same won't hurt them either.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear, though it is regrettable to see a fan based media outlet having to shell out such an extortionate fee, and it's probably an unreasonable fee to ask of any new or emerging fan media accounts.
 
luckywhitefeather said:
I’ve not been asleep in fact it just shows you how well Murray used the mainstream media to control the narrative up to his end days / how Whyte was able to operate in his early days by giving easy exclusives / access which was by and large how he managed to hoodwink the majority of the support.

we can go round in circles on this , the general Rangers public are not on Follow Follow, not subscribing to heart & hand (and that’s no harm to either of those outlets) people consume their news in all manner of ways (and through media I certainly wouldn’t be buying) but that’s not to say Rangers shouldn’t have a presence and be doing everything to reach new fans

do you really not think that the tims use of the media has been highly beneficial to them the last decade?
Lawwell just doing what Murray did (and his lawwell political manoeuvring in soft / sfa / Europe

We are failing to actually address the big issue here regarding the media / public perception / political life in Scotland in 2021 which is the conduct and behaviour of section of our support which gives Rangers a constant pr problem, the idea we are going to get a better shake of things in the future after we’ve fucked off the press for the sake of 20k is laughable
Click to expand...
The press are not relevant.

A decade ago the record sold 300,000 copies a day. That's 5% of the population.
Now? It averages around 80,000 copies a day. There are now more Gaelic speakers than there are people who buy the record.

The sun has gone from 340k to not publishing their numbers. They haven't done that cause they've went up.

Taking sport out of the equation, where has there been investigative journalism? The whole of Scotland knows about what went on at Celtic, yet not one journalist touched the story. The Spotlight team have unearthed more in a year than every Scottish journalist combined has in the last 50.

What about the political scandals? Nope, the poodle press in Scotland just nod along, desperate to remain on the fuhrer's nice list so as not to be ostracised. Woodward and Bernstein would roll in their graves at the standards of journalism here if they were dead, but they're not so they can't.

Scotland doesn't have a functioning media, so people are doing it for themselves and doing it better than the Scottish hacks ever have.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
That's good to hear, though it is regrettable to see a fan based media outlet having to shell out such an extortionate fee, and it's probably an unreasonable fee to ask of any new or emerging fan media accounts.
Click to expand...
To me, it's not really - the new and emerging need to do what H&H have done and grow their brand based on content quality, expanding their subscriber base.

Its only recently that H&H have had access to the club directly, and that's after proving themselves for a considerable period. Before then it was just a bunch of guys talking about Rangers.

There's absolutely no reason why others can't do exactly that and build themselves to the same level. Kind of like in the old days where journalists had to build a portfolio of work to get access to bigger stories and tips. They didn't just show up on their first day and get told 'here, go interview the PM'
 
TinyRick said:
To me, it's not really - the new and emerging need to do what H&H have done and grow their brand based on content quality, expanding their subscriber base.

Its only recently that H&H have had access to the club directly, and that's after proving themselves for a considerable period. Before then it was just a bunch of guys talking about Rangers.

There's absolutely no reason why others can't do exactly that and build themselves to the same level. Kind of like in the old days where journalists had to build a portfolio of work to get access to bigger stories and tips. They didn't just show up on their first day and get told 'here, go interview the PM'
Click to expand...

A fan based media outlet with great success and less finances than traditional newspapers and whom we know have the best interest of the club and fans at heart have been hit with a fee to continue producing the same output, presumably partly because of Rangers' decision to take a harder approach towards spurious reporting from other outlets. I think that's a bit unfair.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
A fan based media outlet with great success and less finances than traditional newspapers and whom we know have the best interest of the club and fans at heart have been hit with a fee to continue producing the same output, presumably partly because of Rangers' decision to take a harder approach towards spurious reporting from other outlets. I think that's a bit unfair.
Click to expand...
Yet that same fan based media outlet don't feel it's unfair.

The access to the press conferences was only new last season. The rest of the content was always done without access to the manager etc. I'm going to presume you don't subscribe, given you don't seem to know this. Give it a try!
 
TinyRick said:
The press are not relevant.

A decade ago the record sold 300,000 copies a day. That's 5% of the population.
Now? It averages around 80,000 copies a day. There are now more Gaelic speakers than there are people who buy the record.

The sun has gone from 340k to not publishing their numbers. They haven't done that cause they've went up.

Taking sport out of the equation, where has there been investigative journalism? The whole of Scotland knows about what went on at Celtic, yet not one journalist touched the story. The Spotlight team have unearthed more in a year than every Scottish journalist combined has in the last 50.

What about the political scandals? Nope, the poodle press in Scotland just nod along, desperate to remain on the fuhrer's nice list so as not to be ostracised. Woodward and Bernstein would roll in their graves at the standards of journalism here if they were dead, but they're not so they can't.

Scotland doesn't have a functioning media, so people are doing it for themselves and doing it better than the Scottish hacks ever have.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but Rangers can’t afford to discount 80,000 potential eyeballs everyday that the free press in the record could provide (not counting their Twitter / Facebook / online views as well

Also the demographic of those still buying a paper everyday, that older age range who arent going to be using fan media / the internet,

(and then add from the other news outlets and you can see the numbers here are not in Rangers favour

I’d also like to hear exactly how much airtime we’ve lost on the bbc due to just not giving one guy a press pass.
I’m sure someone smarter than me will know of industry equation to give a total of the value of that free press we’ve missed out on

totally ridiculous corner we’ve boxed ourselves into and this charging the media will just add to It.
 
luckywhitefeather said:
I’m sorry but Rangers can’t afford to discount 80,000 potential eyeballs everyday that the free press in the record could provide (not counting their Twitter / Facebook / online views as well

Also the demographic of those still buying a paper everyday, that older age range who arent going to be using fan media / the internet,

(and then add from the other news outlets and you can see the numbers here are not in Rangers favour

I’d also like to hear exactly how much airtime we’ve lost on the bbc due to just not giving one guy a press pass.
I’m sure someone smarter than me will know of industry equation to give a total of the value of that free press we’ve missed out on

totally ridiculous corner we’ve boxed ourselves into and this charging the media will just add to It.
Click to expand...

You're missing a key point here mate:

We dont give a %^*&
 
The media used to advertise at stadiums and buy hospitality boxes. Does that still happen?

In effect, that was paying for access and establishing a relationship with the club.

What’s the Record current deal with Celtic?
 
luckywhitefeather said:
I’m sorry but Rangers can’t afford to discount 80,000 potential eyeballs everyday that the free press in the record could provide (not counting their Twitter / Facebook / online views as well

Also the demographic of those still buying a paper everyday, that older age range who arent going to be using fan media / the internet,

(and then add from the other news outlets and you can see the numbers here are not in Rangers favour

I’d also like to hear exactly how much airtime we’ve lost on the bbc due to just not giving one guy a press pass.
I’m sure someone smarter than me will know of industry equation to give a total of the value of that free press we’ve missed out on

totally ridiculous corner we’ve boxed ourselves into and this charging the media will just add to It.
Click to expand...
Surely BBC scotch pie have locked themselves out of Rangers content by backing a journalist that was asked not to lie about the club but couldn’t do it.
I think charging the bastards isn’t a great idea because the older generation still read newspapers. But the notion that the press has a God given right to access is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top