Stewart Robertson Interview

Turrabear

Well-Known Member
This sounded to me like a precursor for a direct approach to the BBC in London with the likelihood of Rangers threatening both the BBC and the SPFL that unless things change no highlights will be allowed to be broadcast on BBC channels
The deal is not with rangers it's a sfa/spfl deal.so I can,t see how we could possible stop them showing highlights.
 

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
Thought it was pretty good. Clear and concise, told us new things (BBC wanting access to Ibrox but still refusing to interview players or coaches) and hammered home that the BBC is at fault here. Especially the part about using an image of Ryan Jack’s severed head in an article about ticketing, which most outsiders would not believe.
that's the first I've heard of this, he mentioned some other one as well.
 

Vince

Well-Known Member
Correct.

We’ve made plenty statements etc in the past that have resulted in nothing changing.

I expect nothing to come of this one either.

We’ll get mocked in the press again like last time & so the roundabout continues.
You are probably right - and that’s why he should be applauded for saying this - but he should have arrived with stats regarding the amazing imbalance in the use of this system.
 
There needs to be more fan pressure to highlight this BBC bias. The fact that this organisation is a public body which is paid by tv license holders is truelly staggering . They don’t have the authority to discriminate against anybody ! This isn’t Celtic tv !
Now must be the time where all Rangers supporters get behind the club to demonstrate this organisations bias against Our club.
Sit back and do nothing and we will see our club be demonises for ever more.
 

LOL 133

Well-Known Member
Have commented earlier in the thread about a different aspect. Commenting separately on the content having watched this carefully a couple of times now.

I'm pleased at us taking the BBC on and for looking for a more transparent framework. And if he's accurate in what he's saying then I hope other clubs will indeed come out to demand change to the system.

The one thing we could have done a bit better is the hard facts in backing up our statements. He talks a bit about correlations and so on. Those who have a background in dealing with data know that the term correlation means a specific thing. If that's the case come out and hit them with the evidence -actual facts and figures and numbers / percentages. Make it harder for them to wriggle out of this - instead there's a lot of "I think..." type comments. Nail the fuckers with hard details. Don't leave it down to opinion.
The sort of hard facts that a researcher could gather if Rangers employed one. Without facts its all just opinion and will be dismissed as such.

Ah well. Business as usual.
 

hms

Well-Known Member
Time to go in hard on the bbc, the bheasts that are in control at PQ have played their hand.

It’s time for us to raise the game
 
There was a brief article by Phil Goodlad on Radio Shortbread this morning just after 7am when he stated that it stood by it's position that it was 'editorially correct' whatever that means in bias speak.
 

deedle

Well-Known Member
Given his performance so far, this is at least a step in the right direction.

However, is it just a one-off that will quickly be forgotten about?

Although it is admittedly difficult to do so in such a hostile media climate, what is really needed in cases like this is for Rangers to ensure that the story will run and run - just like we saw from BBC Scotland and other media outlets in their revenge witch-hunt of Morelos after the Celtic game.

This means getting MPs, MSPs and other public figures on board to allege unfair coverage and state that TV licence payers being short-changed.
 

Bluebrox

Well-Known Member
It's a start from Robertson, and his best statement to date, however had he reacted earlier perhaps we would not have found ourselves in this position.
He is far too reactive and not controlling or influential in any way which puts us on the back foot and makes us look petty. Reacting to bad results when all seems lost is weak and rediculously overdue.
We could and should have been on the front foot following our victory on the 29th and Robertson should have influenced matters by predicting a wave of decisions and publicity against us following our victory. We all knew it would happen why didn't he.
This was yet another PR disaster and I would urge that Robertson is replaced. It is too little and far too late.
Lliewell unfortunately walks all over him, controlling the media, the SFA and and the SPFL. We have an equivalent that controls and influences nothing. We need to bring in a heavyweight and fight fire with fire.
This, all day long.

And I don't think this statement from Roberton will make this he slightest bit of difference.
 
In my view it's a bit foolish, if in fact futile to make such a statement and then go all quiet on the subject.I think the club are all too well aware of the bias and I suspect that Gerrard in particular will be fuming behind closed doors when it's pointed out to him'look at what you could have won' if there had been a level playing field.Furthermore it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he is pitting his future against the club fighting this inbalance.In summary, I think that Robertson must have a plan in place
otherwise this is just an episode of hot air and I sincerely hope that it's not.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
Hope that this is the start of something. Just have this impression of Robertson finishing the interview, sitting back, one hand waving in front of his face for air, the other shakily patting his forehead with a handkerchief and him saying "There, it was awful but I did it. Thank goodness I won't ever have to do anything nasty like that again."
It's all very 'nice'.
Go on, Stewart, prove me wrong.
 

LOL 133

Well-Known Member
Hope that this is the start of something. Just have this impression of Robertson finishing the interview, sitting back, one hand waving in front of his face for air, the other shakily patting his forehead with a handkerchief and him saying "There, it was awful but I did it. Thank goodness I won't ever have to do anything nasty like that again."
It's all very 'nice'.
Go on, Stewart, prove me wrong.
He looked scared as a mouse. I think the tv bigwigs will be pissing themselves laughing.
 
Here's a few notes for your autocue Stewart the next time you brave the camera's:

There is in my view a clear strategy in place to contain Rangers as a going concern, but not a threat to their precious Celtc. The main objective is to ensure Champions League qualification each year.



The following measures have been put in place in furtherance of that plan.



The Rangers tax case-make them as unsellable as possible and send them to the bottom tier of Scottish football.



Rangers sell all of their decent places for a pittance or they leave for nothing.



Shifty in place to control the media.



Tom English/Spiers at the ready to down Rangers at every opportunity.



Lawwell in place on the most influential committees.



BBC in place to steer the narrative and in so doing weaken Rangers playing ability.



Trial by Sportscene.



Compliance officer in place to ‘comply’ with Celtcs wishes.



SNP government who will jump to Celtcs defence at the drop of a hat, but will ignore Rangers indefinitely.



Celtc placemen on most media outlets ably assisted by some ex Rangers ‘judas’ pundits.



Sports Direct constantly dragging Rangers through the courts to ensure that there is little cash made from merchandise.


Celtc buy up most of the promising talent in the league and beyond with no intention of playing them.Loan them out to in effect play against Rangers, but not against Celtc themselves.This in itself needs looking at under ‘sporting integrity’. Most other clubs in the league are literally terrified of upsetting Celtc for fear of losing on loan players.
 

Tomted

Well-Known Member
He looked scared as a mouse. I think the tv bigwigs will be pissing themselves laughing.
Not sure who the bigwigs are but the Pacific Quay mob have been laughing at the expense of our club for ages now. Stewart Robertson may not be the most accomplished communicator but he is likely to have a great deal more integrity than those who may be having a laugh.
 
This means getting MPs, MSPs and other public figures on board to allege unfair coverage and state that TV licence payers being short-changed.
I expect MSPs will be useless here but agree on using MPs, and it's likely the only viable route in terms of tackling this issue with the BBC. Complaints are useful for individual incidents to the extent that an apology or retraction may be offered but it doesn't do anything to address the bigger issue. It's clear BBC Scotland has sufficient autonomy to get away with this behaviour and it will only be rectified by political pressure and by going to the BBC in London.
 

ScotiaPapac

Well-Known Member
that's the first I've heard of this, he mentioned some other one as well.
There was a tweet from the BBC linking to an article about the ticketing arrangement for the League Cup semi final. The picture in the tweet was a crowd shot of Aberdeen fans and they had a banner on which an arm was holding Ryan Jack’s severed head. They soon replaced it and apologised.

I can’t remember mber the other incident, something to do with Morelos?
 
From the BBC (below). If the club has anything in writing that suggests this is not entirely accurate then it's an open goal.

----------

In a statement, BBC Scotland said: "The central part of this dispute is that Rangers is continuing to operate an exceptional ban of one of our journalists.

"We have offered to return to Ibrox to provide commentary, as per our contracted rights, while we try to find a permanent solution to the overall dispute, but Rangers have said this is unacceptable.

"Our coverage, including analysis and comment, is editorially fair.

"We will continue to speak to both Rangers and the SPFL about the situation as we believe it's in the best interest of our audiences to restore the ability to bring commentaries from all SPFL grounds."
 
From the BBC (below). If the club has anything in writing that suggests this is not entirely accurate then it's an open goal.

----------

In a statement, BBC Scotland said: "The central part of this dispute is that Rangers is continuing to operate an exceptional ban of one of our journalists.

"We have offered to return to Ibrox to provide commentary, as per our contracted rights, while we try to find a permanent solution to the overall dispute, but Rangers have said this is unacceptable.

"Our coverage, including analysis and comment, is editorially fair.

"We will continue to speak to both Rangers and the SPFL about the situation as we believe it's in the best interest of our audiences to restore the ability to bring commentaries from all SPFL grounds."
Comical. Absolutely comical
 

fergie1959

Well-Known Member
Can't disagree with the words. I have to say, though, that if I was sitting across from Stewart Robertson during a negotiation I would be very confident of achieving a very good deal for myself. He comes across to me as someone with a weak personality. If there are people on here who know him and think I'm wide of the mark then I will be quite willing to retract my post.
 

bedsblue

Well-Known Member
From the BBC (below). If the club has anything in writing that suggests this is not entirely accurate then it's an open goal.

----------

In a statement, BBC Scotland said: "The central part of this dispute is that Rangers is continuing to operate an exceptional ban of one of our journalists.

"We have offered to return to Ibrox to provide commentary, as per our contracted rights, while we try to find a permanent solution to the overall dispute, but Rangers have said this is unacceptable.

"Our coverage, including analysis and comment, is editorially fair.

"We will continue to speak to both Rangers and the SPFL about the situation as we believe it's in the best interest of our audiences to restore the ability to bring commentaries from all SPFL grounds."
They are lieing,outright barefaced lies,Skeletor has had his press privileges removed,nothing more,nothing less. He is welcome to attend Ibrox by buying entry the same as the rest of us or send a different reporter who's press privileges have not been revoked,SIMPLES!!
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
From the BBC (below). If the club has anything in writing that suggests this is not entirely accurate then it's an open goal.

----------

In a statement, BBC Scotland said: "The central part of this dispute is that Rangers is continuing to operate an exceptional ban of one of our journalists.

"We have offered to return to Ibrox to provide commentary, as per our contracted rights, while we try to find a permanent solution to the overall dispute, but Rangers have said this is unacceptable.

"Our coverage, including analysis and comment, is editorially fair.

"We will continue to speak to both Rangers and the SPFL about the situation as we believe it's in the best interest of our audiences to restore the ability to bring commentaries from all SPFL grounds."
This is why Robertson should have said "we have a folder, inches thick, documenting incidents where their reporting has been prejudicial, unbalanced and, in more than a few cases, sinister" rather than "a folder thick with correspondence" which doesn't need a response.
 

jaws73

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
From the BBC (below). If the club has anything in writing that suggests this is not entirely accurate then it's an open goal.

----------

In a statement, BBC Scotland said: "....Rangers is continuing to operate an exceptional ban of one of our journalists."
Inaccurate again from the BBC. He is not banned, it is his press privileges that have been removed. The BBC have banned him from going. Not like the Beeb to tell porkies, eh?
 

bedsblue

Well-Known Member
Another thing that stood out for me is this part.... Q: Can you explain how the process works?
A: “What would appear to happen is there are incidents from the weekend which are reported to the Compliance Officer.
“She will then look at those incidents, have a discussion with the referee from the match, and subject to his comment, it will then go to a panel of three former ‘Grade One’ referees.
“They, in turn, will look at the incident. If they agree it was either right or wrong, that will take the process down one of two paths. If they agree the decision was correct, then they stick with the decision.
“If they agree it was incorrect, they will then issue a notice of complaint to a player, and the club then has the ability to either accept or deny that charge.
“Afterwards, you then go to a hearing, and from there, you sit in front of a judicial panel of three members who will then take the ultimate decision on what should happen to the player.”

I thought Lunney said in an interview shown recently that there were 100's of volunteer judges and sherriff's who they called on to review the footage,so which one is it?
 

Family bam

Well-Known Member
Well done Stewart but the simple fact concerning the scum at Pacific Quay is, that you can't reason with scum who hate our very existence.
Ban the tarrier c.unts lock, stock and barrel.

NS.
 

Bilbotheblue

Well-Known Member
Another thing that stood out for me is this part.... Q: Can you explain how the process works?
A: “What would appear to happen is there are incidents from the weekend which are reported to the Compliance Officer.
“She will then look at those incidents, have a discussion with the referee from the match, and subject to his comment, it will then go to a panel of three former ‘Grade One’ referees.
“They, in turn, will look at the incident. If they agree it was either right or wrong, that will take the process down one of two paths. If they agree the decision was correct, then they stick with the decision.
“If they agree it was incorrect, they will then issue a notice of complaint to a player, and the club then has the ability to either accept or deny that charge.
“Afterwards, you then go to a hearing, and from there, you sit in front of a judicial panel of three members who will then take the ultimate decision on what should happen to the player.”

I thought Lunney said in an interview shown recently that there were 100's of volunteer judges and sherriff's who they called on to review the footage,so which one is it?
The 100s of volunteers make up the judicial panel which only comes into play if a notice of complaint is issued after the ex refs look at it.
 

LOL 133

Well-Known Member
Not sure who the bigwigs are but the Pacific Quay mob have been laughing at the expense of our club for ages now. Stewart Robertson may not be the most accomplished communicator but he is likely to have a great deal more integrity than those who may be having a laugh.
Integrity yes. Influence no.
 
Nothing against Robertson personally, but he seems to be the epitome of frightened of your own shadow hiding behind dignified silence.In my view we need a terrier leading us who is frightened of nobody else's opinion and will fight the Rangers corner come what may.I see a lot in Leanne Dempster's approach that would not go amiss with us.What else do we have to lose, as we are downtrodden by all at the moment. I hope that with the current statement that the cat is out of the bag. I'm sure most of the support would back this approach.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
Nothing against Robertson personally, but he seems to be the epitome of frightened of your own shadow hiding behind dignified silence.In my view we need a terrier leading us who is frightened of nobody else's opinion and will fight the Rangers corner come what may.I see a lot in Leanne Dempster's approach that would not go amiss with us.What else do we have to lose, as we are downtrodden by all at the moment. I hope that with the current statement that the cat is out of the bag. I'm sure most of the support would back this approach.
Churchill could be our MD right now and he'd struggle. Without political and media back up we are fighting a losing battle. Rangers, the football club, are caught in a wider cultural battle.
 
Churchill could be our MD right now and he'd struggle. Without political and media back up we are fighting a losing battle. Rangers, the football club, are caught in a wider cultural battle.
Agreed. This is where dignified silence gets you.I don't know the answer, but you can bet your last dime that we could take a few leaves out of the Lawwell book of how to do things.Perhaps it's too late.It seems Dave Kings lament about Shifty has steered to the rocks too.
 

Mexi

Well-Known Member
For those saying we should try and block any coverage so they don't show us won't happen and neither the would BBC Scotland since they are contractual obliged to show highlights via the contract with the SPFL

Only the SPFL can insist any blockage and that isn't going to happening either
Not necessarily block the coverage, but wouldn't it be a shame if the feed went down on occasion? Not fair on overseas Bears I know, but it might make the sfa more willing to question the BBC's choice of editing
 

Danger Zone

Well-Known Member
Personally I’m delighted with this interview. This is what I wanted to see from Robertson since the start. Forget trying to build bridges with these cùnts, just go after them and call them out for what they are.

Very clever to mention the fact that the club has confirmation from the BBC (in writing) that it treats Rangers differently.
 

Barca Bear

Well-Known Member
Another thing that stood out for me is this part.... Q: Can you explain how the process works?
A: “What would appear to happen is there are incidents from the weekend which are reported to the Compliance Officer.
“She will then look at those incidents, have a discussion with the referee from the match, and subject to his comment, it will then go to a panel of three former ‘Grade One’ referees.
“They, in turn, will look at the incident. If they agree it was either right or wrong, that will take the process down one of two paths. If they agree the decision was correct, then they stick with the decision.
“If they agree it was incorrect, they will then issue a notice of complaint to a player, and the club then has the ability to either accept or deny that charge.
“Afterwards, you then go to a hearing, and from there, you sit in front of a judicial panel of three members who will then take the ultimate decision on what should happen to the player.”

I thought Lunney said in an interview shown recently that there were 100's of volunteer judges and sherriff's who they called on to review the footage,so which one is it?
That was last season.
This season it's three ex refs and all three must agree, last year it was two from three.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
I thought Lunney said in an interview shown recently that there were 100's of volunteer judges and sherriff's who they called on to review the footage,so which one is it?
True, meant to post this earlier. After SR's rundown the next question should have been "then where do the 100 volunteers come in and what do they do?"
Robertson shouldn't have been saying we want a bad system back, he should have been criticising the way this one is open to abuse and giving examples, asking why it's not transparent and calling for an entirely new, simplified, transparent process that will convince fans that it's applied equally to all clubs.
 

whitbybear45

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the obvious dislike of Robertson on here is because he looks meek and mild with his glasses and diffident manner.Perhaps folk should listen to his words rather than the way he says them and the way he looks. The man is a successful businessman and you don't get that way by being weak and easily beaten.
 
I think Stewart presents a very articulate and responsible argument about the BBC.I would love to see him debate on sportscene with these senior bbc managers the unfair treatment we receive.Show them the doctored interviews from McCoist time and hit them with all the examples he has in his file.it would be interesting to see if they had the bottle to do it and see who these faceless managers are.
 
Top