Jump to content

AJF

Gold Members
  • Posts

    2,912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,527 Excellent

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Rangers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,242 profile views
  1. So, based on this statement alone then, is my original opinion on the matter (copy below) all that unreasonable, considering that is what seems to have sparked this whole back and forth?
  2. Sounds like the kind of forward that Goldson has struggled with in the past.
  3. We knew Kent would be missing but Gerrard also saying Morelos is a doubt.
  4. This Van Veen fella, bit of a hot-head then?
  5. And I absolutely agree with you (other than the plausibility part). It's what I've been saying from the start.
  6. Indeed, and evidently they'll be more reliably informed than AJF on Pie and Bovril. Either way, it's not a good look for the club. As much as I agree Sutton can't be objective at times when it comes to Rangers, it's a dangerous route to go down with a dodgy precedent to set.
  7. That's what I'm trying to get at though. I've asked this question a few times now and the responses have ranged from "It's possible" to "Rangers can't guarantee their safety" rather than anyone actually confirming that they believe that was the genuine reason for them not being allowed in. My opinion is it had nothing to do with genuine safety concerns, it was used as a blanket statement to stop them allowing entry to people they don't want inside Ibrox. I don't think anybody seems to have actually said they think Rangers were being genuine in expressing safety concerns.
  8. I never asked if you thought it was commendable, that was tongue in cheek comment. My question was do you believe that Rangers have taken the action to remove Lennon and Sutton from harms way as they genuinely believed they would be attacked? I can't say for Lennon as I don't know if he has been a pundit at Ibrox before, but Sutton has likely covered matches at Ibrox on numerous occasions without incident.
  9. So that's where I ask the question, as Rangers never took that action, do you think there was a genuine belief that Lennon and Sutton would be set upon?
  10. Well, it's an opinion. And like I've said before, if people did think there was any genuine belief that Lennon and Sutton would be set upon by fans, then why is this in the tinpot thread rather than folk saying, "aye Rangers have taken the right action here"? I'm forming my opinion on the basis that Rangers have moved, pretty rapidly, towards this model of being obstructive and petty with the media and this, to me, appears to be another similar instance. So, do you believe that Rangers have taken the commendable action to remove Lennon and Sutton from harms way as they believed they would be attacked?
  11. It’s not a defence at all, I’ve already said it’s a lot of bullshit and doesn’t look good for us. I’m simply stating I believe this is an attempt by Rangers to play hardball with media/pundits they deem unfavourable rather than them having any genuine “safety concerns”. Most people also seem to think these “safety concerns” are a lot of bullshit so why do they think Rangers done it? Similar in what way?
  12. A class above, Lyon were for the majority of that match. A couple of glimpses at goal but nothing really threatening at all. Aribo is the man we need to unlock defences in these types of games but we couldn’t get him in the areas we needed enough. Probably the worst I’ve seen Davis play in a long time and two bad mistakes from Kent has cost us.
  13. Haha, they’ll be portrayed in a bad light regardless of what the reasons were, no issues with that. If folk genuinely thought the reason they’re not these is because Rangers believed fans would attack them then they’d be saying well done for taking measures to get them out of harms way As it is though, folk are criticising them because they likely believe the exact same as me, that citing “security reasons” is complete bullshit just to avoid letting them in.
  14. What? No. I’m saying they’ve likely used “safety concerns” as a very broad term in order to deny access. There has been no mention that these safety concerns had anything to do with the same expectation that they’d be attacked by fans. Rangers could’ve fed them any old excuse under the term “safety concerns” such as the studio having dodgy wiring, the roof is about to collapse etc. None of which I believe are genuine and are simply a way of denying access to folk they don’t want inside Ibrox.
×
×
  • Create New...