Mod Post: A reminder to folks that trying to bait supporters by posting alternate names for a football club may lead to a yellow card. Folk are welcome to post in any superthread they wish to, but nobody is free to use superthreads or this forum in general as somewhere to try and bait/flame/troll other posters.
Jelle1880 wrote: » How many fans of other clubs have to deal with you and your pals in their thread on a daily basis, spouting utter nonsense ? As for the journos, they were told not to talk about Barton previously to the press conference as it's an ongoing legal matter with the SFA. If they are that stubborn or just plain dumb to do it then it's only right the club steps in. There's a reason the written press in Scotland is on it's last legs.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » The journalist in question today is from Sky Sports.. you know that famous part of the written press in Scotland
Jelle1880 wrote: » How many fans of other clubs have to deal with you and your pals in their thread on a daily basis, spouting utter nonsense ?
bobmalooka wrote: » He asked Warburton has he been in contact with Barton and has Barton indicated that he wants to stay at Rangers (I think that's what I can hear in the clip anyway) Neither have any legal implications with the SFA charge. It's simple and rangers have form for this, if you're not cheerleading you're out. And seeing as you brought up spouting utter nonsense, have you found the time to reply to the valid points about Warburtons under performance yet?Or is LOL Obsessed still the height of your discussion?
Jelle1880 wrote: » You mean when I said that there was justified criticism towards him from the fans about the bad performances ?
Jelle1880 wrote: » You mean when I said that there was justified criticism towards him from the fans about the bad performances ? Or did you miss that between all the nonsense posted by the other Celtic fans in here ? And hey, if the shoe fits... You and your pals continue to showcase your insane, demented obsession with Rangers. Time and time again. And don't give me that crap about how it's 'just interesting and you only want to discuss it'. Regarding that clip: That's just a small part of it, he was told by Warburton that he would not be answering any questions about Barton, so he proceeded to ask questions about exactly that 4 times in a row. So good job by Traynor in shutting him down. It would have been only improved if Warburton hadn't come back out or if that idiot had been shown the door. And as far as that 'cheerleading' comment... Is Keith Jackson already allowed back in at your club ? Or wait... 'that's different', right ? :pac:
weldoninhio wrote: » Traynor not letting Warburton talk to BT. Wagons being circled. Hopefully you'll be able to get the independent cert to say the roof is safe or else.........
Jelle1880 wrote: » Why should Warburton talk to a station that employs Chris Sutton, who spends entire games talking about how **** Warburton is at his job ? Also, Miller and Krancjar gave interviews to BT Sport, so they don't have a leg to stand on. As for that cert comment, do you also believe the twitter rumor that we're stealing water from the local church ? :pac:
Jelle1880 wrote: » Why should Warburton talk to a station that employs Chris Sutton, who spends entire games talking about how **** Warburton is at his job ?
Also, Miller and Krancjar gave interviews to BT Sport, so they don't have a leg to stand on.
LiamoSail wrote: » Because Rangers signed a contract agreeing to do specifically that Neither of whom are members of the management team, as required by the contract. Rangers really are some circus act. Between this, the bat **** crazy statements, the Barton affair, Sky last week and the ongoing merchandising and finance issues, it's off the wall stuff. It's like an ongoing completion to see how much more ridiculous they can make themselves look
weldoninhio wrote: » Why? Because BT put millions into the game in Scotland, and a member of the management team is contractually obliged to speak with them. BT have made a complaint to the SPFL about it.
Jelle1880 wrote: » Putting millions into the game doesn't make you immune to criticism though. Warburton is perfectly within his rights to refuse to talk to a station that employs the likes of Chris 'We knew they'd lie down' Sutton. I'm pretty sure nobody at Ibrox cares if they put in a complaint. The fact he spoke to Sky shows it's not some form of 'circling the wagons' but that it's an issue solely with BT. Sports.
weldoninhio wrote: » Except he's not "perfectly within his rights", him or a member of his management team is CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGED to speak with BT. It's in the rule book (Appendix 5 Part B Item 3) that a member from management or coaching staff had to make themselves available within 30 mins of game.
Jelle1880 wrote: » Missing the point again I see. What I said is that if Warburton or the club feels Sutton's comments are way over the line (which they are) then they are within their rights to not talk to the station that employs him, even if they are normally obliged to do so. Sutton is a joke of a pundit whose only interest seems to be courting controversy, it's not just confined to Rangers as he also slags off his colleagues all the time. Alex Ferguson was also contractually obliged to talk to the BBC and decided it was worth the fines not to do so.
Jelle1880 wrote: » Alex Ferguson was also contractually obliged to talk to the BBC and decided it was worth the fines not to do so.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Big difference is that MU could afford the fines to make a point, Rangers cannot and are more likely to burn creditors/taxpayers than pay what they owe
Jelle1880 wrote: » More unsubstantiated bull**** from you I see. Or are you also a tax specialist with full knowledge about our finances like apparently the rest of your fans ? If there are fines they'll be small, and worth it. Hell, fans could probably have a whip-round to pay them.