bruce778

You could say that about most players who sign for any club in Scotland or anywhere else really.

For the record, Houston categorically said he didn't think the bbc was anti-rangers and cited his appearances on the bbc as evidence for that so I think you need your ears checked. He said he thought certain people who worked for the bbc were anti rangers and labelled that accusation at tom English. Now I don't agree with that but you're clearly misrepresenting what was said. Again he didn't say he didn't hear bigotry he said he didn't see people being arrested. I agree this is not the best point as who sees everything that goes on in a football ground even if they are there but again you are misrepresenting what was said. His point re spence is not worthless and is worthy of rebuttal by the bbc. It appears that spence was banned from dens park by Dundee and this was not denied but the bbc continued to cover Dundee games. On its face, this appears inconsistent with the position adopted by the bbc in relation to rangers. The fact that bbc bosses spoke to tom English 30 mins before he went on air about the Dundee situation suggests there is some merit to this argument but he could not explain the different approach adopted. It may be that it's different but it's a worthwhile point and one that ought to have been easily rebutted by the bbc given it had all the facts at its fingertips.

I just re- read what you wrote and could break it down sentence by sentence. You obviously wrote what you wanted to hear.Rangers have revoked Chris mclaughlins press privileges at ibrox. In response, the bbc has said they will not cover rangers matches (home I assume). Craig Houston said that jim spence encountered a similar issue at Dundee but the bbc did not refuse to cover Dundee matches. An interesting comparison. Tom English said that, based on hearsay from bbc bosses, it was a different situation but was unable to explain the difference. Similarly, Richard Wilson raised the issue of Alex ferguson refusing to speak to the bbc but no one from the bbc could explain why the bbc continued to cover Man U but have now pulled their plug on the coverage of rangers. Now, whether or not you agree with rangers' decision, these are interesting points that the bbc could not answer. I'm not saying that the bbc is against rangers but no one on the show the other night was equipped with the answers that could easily have swatted away the questions. Stuart McCall effectively sympathised with rangers that the bbc had focused on 3 arrests out of 3,500 after a 6-2 win over their nearest rivals this season.

That you posted nonsense? Correct.

I listened to the interview and while I didn't agree with a lot that Craig Houston said that is a distorted and inaccurate summary of the discussion that actually took place.

Was very impressed with Nicholson and walker yesterday. If they play like that this season then I see no reason why they couldn't get a move to rangers or to an EPL team for next season.

Apparently Keith Jackson is still banned by Celtic. What are spiers and McLaughlin supposed to have done here?

I see Alan Stubbs has signed an extension to his deal at hibs. The timing seems a bit odd to me. Can't say that, from the outside looking in, he has done a great job at hibs. You would have thought they might have waited to see how they start the season before giving him a new deal. Hibs fans happy with this?

No it's not. Be realistic and not short sighted. Allan has much more likelihood of playing at a higher level signing for rangers than any other team in Scotland other than Celtic. He is a young man - it's not just about next season - it's about the next 5 years of his career. I would not criticise a young player joining hibs from st mirren ahead of smaller spl clubs. You also seem to have focused on league position last season and overlooked the pasting hibs got on Sunday and the change in manager and player personnel at rangers. Still very early days but hardly bodes well for hibs league campaign does it?

Not really - was a pretty obvious thing to point out given you had bothered to quote it, then misspelt it. Careless stuff. You are the master at posting absolute pish on here so that comment has got me a little concerned I'll admit.

Yawn. Your patter's awful mate. Not wasting my time.

Quality banter.

If you're going to make a big deal about a word it helps if you can spell it...Are people on here actually denying rangers are a much bigger club than hibs? Delusional.

A lot of vitriol for Allan on this thread. Hard to take a lot of it seriously when you have people describing going from hibs to rangers as a "sideway move". Not like he is the first player to try to engineer a transfer. At least in this case it is a transfer to a team that he supports, just pumped his current team 6-2 and is a much bigger club. Having said all that I don't think rangers need Scott Allan this season and should wait until January to sign him on a free for next season. That would make everyone happy too.

Not sure what he did wrong specifically...?

Hibs were better team for most of that half. Rangers goal seemed to start a momentum shift. Holt been rangers best player by far. Didn't realise McKay and templeton were playing until 35 minutes in!

He started a uefa cup final while at rangers. Very harsh to say it was a bad career move as you implied above. He wasn't the best player at rangers but he was pretty solid (apart from with throw ins).

Yep

How can people condemn him when they don't know what he did? Can be inferred that it must have been pretty bad but no one actually knows what he did....

You said he had lied and contradicted himself. I don't see anything in that article to support that view.

And (even if he said that) did he put a time frame on that?Not quite sure how he has contradicted himself... Happy to be proved wrong.

I must have missed that specific amount of investment and the time frame associated with it? It seems people are determined to have a go at king for whatever reason. I am happy to be proved wrong but he hasn't broken any promises I'm aware of and appears to be running (or perhaps more accurately supervising the running of) rangers in the exact manner that many critics were advocating for in the past few years. My sources for the McLean transfer fee of around £300k are similar to the sources for the transfer fees paid by rangers. http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/31094119 and https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/aberdeen-fc/dons-sign-kenny-mclean-for-275000/. The fact remains that spending £150 - 300k by Aberdeen is way more of Aberdeen's budget than rangers spending £750k (even if rangers have spent that which is doubtful).

Er because it was like a scene from 1960s America or apartheid South Africa where a black man wasn't allowed on a train by white guys simply because he was black?Maybe I'm an idealist but I think that warrants public interest....

No one outside Celtic has 30,000 + season ticket holders. Aberdeen spent 350k on one player in January - presumably, you posted a similarly nonsensical post about that transfer. I am not sure if we have spent 750k either - only two transfers I have seen fees for are Holt (60k) and Kiernan (200k). Of course, we have people slagging King for not spending enough and others for slagging Rangers for spending too much....

Ian black