|
The Board - general discussion (including Res 12); notes from the AGM
|
|
Topic Started: 15 Jul 2014, 12:03 AM (1,414,632 Views)
|
|
Ess
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:14 PM
Post #7801
|
- Posts:
- 14,742
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #6,688
- Joined:
- 25 January 2007
|
- Auldyin
- 8 Jun 2016, 05:09 PM
- Tiny Tim
- 8 Jun 2016, 11:14 AM
- greenjedi
- 8 Jun 2016, 09:32 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I'm afraid you'll be right. I think we'll get fobbed off with a "tried our best" story. I don't think the club were ever behind this, in fact I think it's more likely that they have been all about managing events to make it go away. I feel sorry for the Res 12 boys.
Dont. They have acted professionally and with integrity throughout in the interests of an honest game. You know,the way all the other parties should have done.😉 Why are certain newspapers refusing to run this advert - what reason are they giving ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Devo
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:20 PM
Post #7802
|
- Posts:
- 474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,045
- Joined:
- 6 November 2013
|
- Ess
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:14 PM
- Auldyin
- 8 Jun 2016, 05:09 PM
- Tiny Tim
- 8 Jun 2016, 11:14 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Dont. They have acted professionally and with integrity throughout in the interests of an honest game. You know,the way all the other parties should have done.😉
Why are certain newspapers refusing to run this advert - what reason are they giving ? The threat made by Level 5 of their client Ladbrokes withdrawing their advertising.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wanyerma
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:27 PM
Post #7803
|
- Posts:
- 8,374
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,294
- Joined:
- 22 August 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik
|
@alextomo 26 seconds ago So - @Channel4News has asked the Guardian why it declined to run the advert placed by Scottish fans...
|
|
|
| |
|
Tiny Tim
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:28 PM
Post #7804
|
"a Premier League player in all but status"
- Posts:
- 21,302
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #856
- Joined:
- 15 April 2005
- Favourite all-time player
- JimmyJimmyJimmyJimmyJohnstone On The Wing, On The wing
|
- Wanyerma
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:27 PM
@alextomo 26 seconds ago So - @Channel4News has asked the Guardian why it declined to run the advert placed by Scottish fans...
|
|
|
| |
|
ceannaboe
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:34 PM
Post #7805
|
- Posts:
- 575
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,210
- Joined:
- 10 January 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- the evil genius
|
- Devo
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:20 PM
- Ess
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:14 PM
- Auldyin
- 8 Jun 2016, 05:09 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why are certain newspapers refusing to run this advert - what reason are they giving ?
The threat made by Level 5 of their client Ladbrokes withdrawing their advertising. no proof but this reeks of political intervention
|
|
|
| |
|
Forza
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:40 PM
Post #7806
|
- Posts:
- 7,738
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #23,749
- Joined:
- 5 June 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik
- Twitter Name
- @ForzaKDS
|
- Devo
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:20 PM
- Ess
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:14 PM
- Auldyin
- 8 Jun 2016, 05:09 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why are certain newspapers refusing to run this advert - what reason are they giving ?
The threat made by Level 5 of their client Ladbrokes withdrawing their advertising. Can this be substantiated?
Because it would be extremely serious if so. Especially as it was the Guardian that led for days on the Daily Telegraph suppressing HSBC Swiss tax avoidance stories because of the nature of its advertising arrangements with HSBC.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mickeybhoy84
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:44 PM
Post #7807
|
- Posts:
- 13,298
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #6,785
- Joined:
- 31 January 2007
|
So the Guardians reason for not wanting to print the advert is because they don't want to print the advert? Nice to see they operate such an open and honest policy at that paper.
|
|
|
| |
|
paulfg42
|
9 Jun 2016, 12:47 PM
Post #7808
|
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
- Posts:
- 42,390
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- 31 August 2004
|
- Tiny Tim
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:28 PM
- Wanyerma
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:27 PM
@alextomo 26 seconds ago So - @Channel4News has asked the Guardian why it declined to run the advert placed by Scottish fans...
Not even close to answering the question.
|
|
|
| |
|
john67
|
10 Jun 2016, 05:53 AM
Post #7809
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,208
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #219
- Joined:
- 15 September 2004
|
So is today D day for the REV12 statement??
|
|
|
| |
|
FergusMcGrain
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:18 AM
Post #7810
|
First name on the team-sheet
- Posts:
- 1,363
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,234
- Joined:
- 17 June 2015
- Favourite all-time player
- Bobby Lennox
|
Most people out there just roll with the flow and just accept whatever happens, then you have the likes of the guys at FAC and the Resolution 12 guys who are prepared to fight their corner and stick at it till they can make a difference.
If it was up to the 'why bother' brigade, most of us would be still living in slums with no rights or healthcare.
The Guardian pulling the Ad has proven that they have rattled some cages in some very high places, more power to them.
|
|
|
| |
|
san meegs
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:22 AM
Post #7811
|
- Posts:
- 3,885
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #25,143
- Joined:
- 13 January 2010
|
Greenslade wades in in today's Guardian:
Why the Guardian rejected an advert about Scottish football
Spoiler: click to toggle Roy Greenslade
Published: 07:52 BST Fri 10 June 2016
The content did not meet with the publisher’s advertising terms and conditions
Ok, enough already! I started to receive tweets two days ago that made no sense to me. Eventually, a couple of helpful emailers sent me links.
Only then did I realise that they were complaining about the Guardian having refused to publish an advert.
The crowd-funded ad, created by a group Celtic shareholders linked to a website, Celtic Quick News (CQN), raised questions about the governance of Scottish football.
It concerns a situation that has little resonance outside Scotland and, arguably, outside Glasgow, about Rangers Football Club having gone into administration in 2012 followed by its re-emergence as a reconstituted entity.
The nub of the shareholders’ allegation is that rules were broken by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in order to allow the “new” Rangers to obtain a Uefa licence to play in European Champions League.
To be honest, the background is much more complicated. A fuller account can be found on a site called the offshore game. But I hope my short version provides just enough context to deal with the complaint about the advert.
Firstly, I need to deal with claims that the Guardian agreed to run it and then refused to do so at the last minute.
My understanding is that the advert was indeed booked in, but that the copy had not been seen at the time. It was in French, the ad having previously been published in a Swiss newspaper.
Once it was translated into English, the usual procedure for dealing with all ads kicked in. The content was reviewed in the normal way and it was decided, on balance, that it did not comply with the Guardian’s advertising terms and conditions. I believe legal advice was also sought.
A Guardian News & Media (GNM) spokesperson said:
“All adverts submitted for publication are considered on a case-by-case basis to assess suitability for publication according to our advertising terms and conditions.
The Guardian reserves the right to reject adverts at our discretion. Either the acceptance or refusal of advertising does not in any way reflect our editorial position.”
I cannot see how this raises issues of press freedom because it was a purely commercial matter. It does not compromise the the paper’s commitment to impartial sports reporting because there is a strict boundary between decisions made by the advertising department and those taken as part of the editorial process.
PS: Personally, I might have reached a different decision, but that’s totally beside the point. GNM’s ad department has rules and it applied them.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/10/why-the-guardian-rejected-an-advert-about-scottish-football
|
|
|
| |
|
Quiet Assasin
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:27 AM
Post #7812
|
..for the maintenance of dinner tables for the children and the unemployed
- Posts:
- 42,247
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #24,627
- Joined:
- 18 October 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- 'The Assailant'
|
- san meegs
- 10 Jun 2016, 08:22 AM
Greenslade wades in in today's Guardian: Why the Guardian rejected an advert about Scottish football
Spoiler: click to toggle Roy Greenslade
Published: 07:52 BST Fri 10 June 2016
The content did not meet with the publisher’s advertising terms and conditions
Ok, enough already! I started to receive tweets two days ago that made no sense to me. Eventually, a couple of helpful emailers sent me links.
Only then did I realise that they were complaining about the Guardian having refused to publish an advert.
The crowd-funded ad, created by a group Celtic shareholders linked to a website, Celtic Quick News (CQN), raised questions about the governance of Scottish football.
It concerns a situation that has little resonance outside Scotland and, arguably, outside Glasgow, about Rangers Football Club having gone into administration in 2012 followed by its re-emergence as a reconstituted entity.
The nub of the shareholders’ allegation is that rules were broken by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in order to allow the “new” Rangers to obtain a Uefa licence to play in European Champions League.
To be honest, the background is much more complicated. A fuller account can be found on a site called the offshore game. But I hope my short version provides just enough context to deal with the complaint about the advert.
Firstly, I need to deal with claims that the Guardian agreed to run it and then refused to do so at the last minute.
My understanding is that the advert was indeed booked in, but that the copy had not been seen at the time. It was in French, the ad having previously been published in a Swiss newspaper.
Once it was translated into English, the usual procedure for dealing with all ads kicked in. The content was reviewed in the normal way and it was decided, on balance, that it did not comply with the Guardian’s advertising terms and conditions. I believe legal advice was also sought.
A Guardian News & Media (GNM) spokesperson said:
“All adverts submitted for publication are considered on a case-by-case basis to assess suitability for publication according to our advertising terms and conditions.
The Guardian reserves the right to reject adverts at our discretion. Either the acceptance or refusal of advertising does not in any way reflect our editorial position.”
I cannot see how this raises issues of press freedom because it was a purely commercial matter. It does not compromise the the paper’s commitment to impartial sports reporting because there is a strict boundary between decisions made by the advertising department and those taken as part of the editorial process.
PS: Personally, I might have reached a different decision, but that’s totally beside the point. GNM’s ad department has rules and it applied them. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/10/why-the-guardian-rejected-an-advert-about-scottish-football His article is totally incorrect.
It wasn't about the 'new' Rangers getting a license. It was about he old club breaching basic UEFA Rules that have been enforced all over Europe on various different clubs and then an attempt to suppress debate on it.
|
|
|
| |
|
remy mcswain
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:28 AM
Post #7813
|
- Posts:
- 62,837
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #74
- Joined:
- 1 September 2004
- Favourite all-time player
- Celticsean
|
Greenslade wades in incorrectly. It has eff all to do with the "new" Rangers.
|
|
|
| |
|
san meegs
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:39 AM
Post #7814
|
- Posts:
- 3,885
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #25,143
- Joined:
- 13 January 2010
|
- Quiet Assasin
- 10 Jun 2016, 08:27 AM
- san meegs
- 10 Jun 2016, 08:22 AM
Greenslade wades in in today's Guardian: Why the Guardian rejected an advert about Scottish football
Spoiler: click to toggle Roy Greenslade
Published: 07:52 BST Fri 10 June 2016
The content did not meet with the publisher’s advertising terms and conditions
Ok, enough already! I started to receive tweets two days ago that made no sense to me. Eventually, a couple of helpful emailers sent me links.
Only then did I realise that they were complaining about the Guardian having refused to publish an advert.
The crowd-funded ad, created by a group Celtic shareholders linked to a website, Celtic Quick News (CQN), raised questions about the governance of Scottish football.
It concerns a situation that has little resonance outside Scotland and, arguably, outside Glasgow, about Rangers Football Club having gone into administration in 2012 followed by its re-emergence as a reconstituted entity.
The nub of the shareholders’ allegation is that rules were broken by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in order to allow the “new” Rangers to obtain a Uefa licence to play in European Champions League.
To be honest, the background is much more complicated. A fuller account can be found on a site called the offshore game. But I hope my short version provides just enough context to deal with the complaint about the advert.
Firstly, I need to deal with claims that the Guardian agreed to run it and then refused to do so at the last minute.
My understanding is that the advert was indeed booked in, but that the copy had not been seen at the time. It was in French, the ad having previously been published in a Swiss newspaper.
Once it was translated into English, the usual procedure for dealing with all ads kicked in. The content was reviewed in the normal way and it was decided, on balance, that it did not comply with the Guardian’s advertising terms and conditions. I believe legal advice was also sought.
A Guardian News & Media (GNM) spokesperson said:
“All adverts submitted for publication are considered on a case-by-case basis to assess suitability for publication according to our advertising terms and conditions.
The Guardian reserves the right to reject adverts at our discretion. Either the acceptance or refusal of advertising does not in any way reflect our editorial position.”
I cannot see how this raises issues of press freedom because it was a purely commercial matter. It does not compromise the the paper’s commitment to impartial sports reporting because there is a strict boundary between decisions made by the advertising department and those taken as part of the editorial process.
PS: Personally, I might have reached a different decision, but that’s totally beside the point. GNM’s ad department has rules and it applied them. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jun/10/why-the-guardian-rejected-an-advert-about-scottish-football
His article is totally incorrect. It wasn't about the 'new' Rangers getting a license. It was about he old club breaching basic UEFA Rules that have been enforced all over Europe on various different clubs and then an attempt to suppress debate on it. Yep.
He also seems to be sticking to the line that the copy of the advert was in French - despite CQN and others saying it was never put into French at any point.
|
|
|
| |
|
pmarsh22
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:45 AM
Post #7815
|
Getting noticed in the reserves
- Posts:
- 84
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8,696
- Joined:
- 8 June 2007
|
- ceannaboe
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:34 PM
- Devo
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:20 PM
- Ess
- 9 Jun 2016, 12:14 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The threat made by Level 5 of their client Ladbrokes withdrawing their advertising.
no proof but this reeks of political intervention Not so sure about Ladbrokes, Sky or BT more like, the unseen Jim White influence ???????
|
|
|
| |
|
Fuctifino
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:48 AM
Post #7816
|
I'm new. Be gentle.
- Posts:
- 34
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34,780
- Joined:
- 19 April 2016
|
Was the article in the Swiss paper in English too? I'm sure I read that somewhere. The internet bampots will prevail
|
|
|
| |
|
Cossy
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:51 AM
Post #7817
|
- Posts:
- 2,724
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,935
- Joined:
- 4 February 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Danny McGrain
|
Greenslade is either wrong on two distinct points, whether intentionally or through misinformation I cannot say and he also basically repeats the "it's oor rules" line trotted out by his bosses.
He'd have been as well saying nothing at all.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cossy
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:51 AM
Post #7818
|
- Posts:
- 2,724
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #22,935
- Joined:
- 4 February 2009
- Favourite all-time player
- Danny McGrain
|
- Fuctifino
- 10 Jun 2016, 08:48 AM
Was the article in the Swiss paper in English too? I'm sure I read that somewhere. The internet bampots will prevail The article in the Swiss Paper was in English. It was always in English.
|
|
|
| |
|
FrizzP
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:57 AM
Post #7819
|
- Posts:
- 174
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,840
- Joined:
- 29 August 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Artur Boruc
|
Sorry but In laymans terms can someone explain what this is all about. Is it basically rangers owed a debt and shouldn't have been granted a license to play in Europe but the Sfa overlooked this??
|
|
|
| |
|
Lubo The Magician
|
10 Jun 2016, 08:58 AM
Post #7820
|
The Devil's right hand...
- Posts:
- 17,687
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,147
- Joined:
- 9 June 2005
|
- FrizzP
- 10 Jun 2016, 08:57 AM
Sorry but In laymans terms can someone explain what this is all about. Is it basically rangers owed a debt and shouldn't have been granted a license to play in Europe but the Sfa overlooked this?? all in here
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|