Jump to content

What's the most "Tin Pot" thing you've seen in the SPFL


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, AJF said:

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?

It’s still possible that they thought there was a genuine risk that Sutton/Lennon would be assaulted, and they weighed up the options of not letting them in or providing extra security and decided on the former. And the reason for that will be that, without even checking, there’s undoubtedly a load of Rangers fans absolutely loving getting it right up ‘wan ae them’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oneteaminglasgow said:

It’s still possible that they thought there was a genuine risk that Sutton/Lennon would be assaulted, and they weighed up the options of not letting them in or providing extra security and decided on the former. And the reason for that will be that, without even checking, there’s undoubtedly a load of Rangers fans absolutely loving getting it right up ‘wan ae them’

Scott Brown was confronted on the Ibrox pitch by a fan a few years ago 

So you’d say it’s entirely possible 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

It’s still possible that they thought there was a genuine risk that Sutton/Lennon would be assaulted, and they weighed up the options of not letting them in or providing extra security and decided on the former. And the reason for that will be that, without even checking, there’s undoubtedly a load of Rangers fans absolutely loving getting it right up ‘wan ae them’

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

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.

So Rangers are not for everyone and anyone then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AJF said:

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.

To be fair, your official media partner seem to agree

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

To be fair, your official media partner seem to agree

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

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.

No, I don’t think they had legitimate security concerns. I think they used the fact that it’s plausible that some of your fans would attack Sutton and/or Lennon as an excuse to try to dictate (again) to media organisations who is and isn’t allowed to report on matters from Ibrox. And I think they should be absolutely fucking hammered for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

No, I don’t think they had legitimate security concerns. I think they used the fact that it’s plausible that some of your fans would attack Sutton and/or Lennon as an excuse to try to dictate (again) to media organisations who is and isn’t allowed to report on matters from Ibrox. And I think they should be absolutely fucking hammered for it. 

And I absolutely agree with you (other than the plausibility part). It's what I've been saying from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mr. Alli said:

Stopping Lennon and Sutton getting in is brilliant. More clubs should ban rival ex players, IMO. 

That bigoted weasel Neil McCann was never seen in McDiarmid Park while Tommy Wright remained in charge. I do wonder if we refused his media pass or perhaps he was to intimidated to turn up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...