I'm so sorry that the word "can" offends you. I'd love to be able not to use it, but sadly I find it necessary.
But if they do have such a large fanbase, why do they not exist on the internet? That's more my point than anything else.
I'm going to take Standard Charter's word over that of a fansite, if I may be so bold. I doubt they chose to sponsor Liverpool FC based on rumour and conjecture, especially when it's $130 million at stake. The source of the statement is enough for me to consider it as evidence without the methodology being revealed. A big business spokesperson is normally more reliable than "jimmythejock" and a Rangers fansite.
You can change the interpretation all you want, it won't make you right. I presented evidence I have no reason to question it, from a reputable source.
And why do you think I'd consider Scotland a "Northern backwater"? Oh, right, ad hominem attack. Forgot, internet.
Rangers gives a figure of 30,000 for 600 clubs. That's 50 members per club. So I was 40 supporters a club out on my guess. Thanks.
As you well know, it was not the use of the word can that offended me, it was the inference that I was unaware of the function of search engines on the internet.
You ask a very good question about why the large Rangers fanbase does not exist on the internet. I personally have no idea and will take your word for it that they don't. However, if you are using Standard Charter's quote as proof that Liverpool does have 130 million fans, then I see no point in discussing this further.
Standard Charter are exactly like any other global company that has invaded football in England over the last 20 years, keen to have a piece of the ever expanding pie until the "real fans" (you know, the ones who actually put money into the club) are forgotten in the rush to expand the "global appeal". How is the 130 million measured? Was there a global football census carried out? Who paid for it? Or was it just a soundbite to appease the local fans in Liverpool by presenting the illusion that Asia is a hotbed of diehard Kopites?
You and your sources strike me as that of a post Premiership football fan with phrases such as "global reach" being used in place of honours won or famous players.
You have already stated that the Premiership is sold across the world and of course that will open new markets and enhance the global reach of English clubs, but consider this...
Earlier you stated that you wanted to compare like with like, that being the case why are you comparing Liverpool and Rangers in the first place? We do not have access to Sky's money or to grow our loyal support through worldwide sponsorship deals.
That being the case, surely the figures (and range of territories covered) in the link I provided goes some way to proving how large Rangers have historically been and continue to be based on ex-pat Scots and Irish, and the people that they have influenced.
I would say that alone justifies the Rangers result being read out last Thursday.
As you well know, it was not the use of the word can that offended me, it was the inference that I was unaware of the function of search engines on the internet.
You ask a very good question about why the large Rangers fanbase does not exist on the internet. I personally have no idea and will take your word for it that they don't. However, if you are using Standard Charter's quote as proof that Liverpool does have 130 million fans, then I see no point in discussing this further.
Standard Charter are exactly like any other global company that has invaded football in England over the last 20 years, keen to have a piece of the ever expanding pie until the "real fans" (you know, the ones who actually put money into the club) are forgotten in the rush to expand the "global appeal". How is the 130 million measured? Was there a global football census carried out? Who paid for it? Or was it just a soundbite to appease the local fans in Liverpool by presenting the illusion that Asia is a hotbed of diehard Kopites?
You and your sources strike me as that of a post Premiership football fan with phrases such as "global reach" being used in place of honours won or famous players.
You have already stated that the Premiership is sold across the world and of course that will open new markets and enhance the global reach of English clubs, but consider this...
Earlier you stated that you wanted to compare like with like, that being the case why are you comparing Liverpool and Rangers in the first place? We do not have access to Sky's money or to grow our loyal support through worldwide sponsorship deals.
That being the case, surely the figures (and range of territories covered) in the link I provided goes some way to proving how large Rangers have historically been and continue to be based on ex-pat Scots and Irish, and the people that they have influenced.
I would say that alone justifies the Rangers result being read out last Thursday.
Don't infer things then
Right, so Standard Charter don't count because, despite them being a worldwide brand, they're only doing it to appease Liverpudlians. And the best way to express that is in... an Asian business paper? I'm sorry, but your argument is collapsing around you.
My arguments are based on the fact that people require every single perceived slight against Scotland to be thoroughly debunked. I hate footbal. I really, really hate it and if Liverpool FC disappeared tomorrow I would dance in the streets because it bores me to absolute tears. Everyone assumes that if you're from Liverpool you should care about football and it kills me. So that's the second thing you've got wrong through assumptions.
Why am I comparing Liverpool with Rangers? Because Koala said that they're equal. I wouldn't have called them equal. I would say Liverpool are a bigger and better recognised brand.
Again, BBC World isn't a service for expat Brits. It's for the international community. Just because expats and those around them like Rangers doesn't mean that the rest of the world do, as opposed to a club like Liverpool or Man Utd who do have a fanbase outside expat communities. BBC World is a commercial channel and they show the news most relevant to their target audience.
Right, so Standard Charter don't count because, despite them being a worldwide brand, they're only doing it to appease Liverpudlians. And the best way to express that is in... an Asian business paper? I'm sorry, but your argument is collapsing around you.
My arguments are based on the fact that people require every single perceived slight against Scotland to be thoroughly debunked. I hate footbal. I really, really hate it and if Liverpool FC disappeared tomorrow I would dance in the streets because it bores me to absolute tears. Everyone assumes that if you're from Liverpool you should care about football and it kills me. So that's the second thing you've got wrong through assumptions.
Why am I comparing Liverpool with Rangers? Because Koala said that they're equal. I wouldn't have called them equal. I would say Liverpool are a bigger and better recognised brand.
Again, BBC World isn't a service for expat Brits. It's for the international community. Just because expats and those around them like Rangers doesn't mean that the rest of the world do, as opposed to a club like Liverpool or Man Utd who do have a fanbase outside expat communities. BBC World is a commercial channel and they show the news most relevant to their target audience.
I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse now.
I did not state that Standard Charter don't count, simply that the quotation you are using as the basis of your argument has no substance.
I work for a "global brand" who have a customer base of 250 million. How do we prove this figure? We have systems and MI to calculate it. How do Liverpool or Standard Charter "prove" that Liverpool have a global fanbase of 130 million? Do you have any idea about how much it would cost to prove this statistic, never mind the logistics involved in carrying it out. Hence, to my mind, it is no more worthwhile than stating that Rangers have "millions" of fans. Just because it is presented as a more specific number, and by a global company, does not make it any more viable. It is a soundbite from a press release regarding a very large financial deal, no more, no less. The same as Torres stating that he would be at Liverpool for life, meaningless tosh to ingratiate themselves with their new beau.
I am not discussing a slight against Scotland, I am discussing your lack of knowledge of the history and reach of Rangers Football Club. Now knowing that you have no interest in football makes your ignorance of my club a little easier to take, but that is eroded by the fact that you feel that you are in the position to comment on what size my team is.
Could your perception that Liverpool are vastly more popular worldwide come from the fact that you are from the city and that the people you meet in your life will make that link? I would suppose you have similar issues with people referencing the Beatles?
You not being a football fan, or from Glasgow, I would not expect you are ever in a position to ask anyone their knowledge or opinion of Rangers Football Club. I of course am the opposite to you, so will have a contrary view of our place in the world.
My mention of ex-pat Scots and Irish was not to state that every Rangers supporter abroad is of Celtic ancestry, merely that in over 100 years of our club's existence, many Scots have emigrated and spread knowledge of our club, thus my reference to those they have influenced. How many of them are the target audience for BBC Worldwide would again be difficult to calculate.
Maybe there is an indigenous Nigerian Rangers supporter who would be willing to give his opinion on the matter, if only he had the necessary computer on which to air his grievance.
Sorry to everyone else for hijacking the thread, for what it's worth, I believe there is something in some Scots' mindset that wants (needs) to feel slighted in order to justify their irrationalities. I have as little time for that attitude as I do the many ignorant little Englanders on the other side.
I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse now.
I did not state that Standard Charter don't count, simply that the quotation you are using as the basis of your argument has no substance.
I work for a "global brand" who have a customer base of 250 million. How do we prove this figure? We have systems and MI to calculate it. How do Liverpool or Standard Charter "prove" that Liverpool have a global fanbase of 130 million? Do you have any idea about how much it would cost to prove this statistic, never mind the logistics involved in carrying it out. Hence, to my mind, it is no more worthwhile than stating that Rangers have "millions" of fans. Just because it is presented as a more specific number, and by a global company, does not make it any more viable. It is a soundbite from a press release regarding a very large financial deal, no more, no less. The same as Torres stating that he would be at Liverpool for life, meaningless tosh to ingratiate themselves with their new beau.
I am not discussing a slight against Scotland, I am discussing your lack of knowledge of the history and reach of Rangers Football Club. Now knowing that you have no interest in football makes your ignorance of my club a little easier to take, but that is eroded by the fact that you feel that you are in the position to comment on what size my team is.
Could your perception that Liverpool are vastly more popular worldwide come from the fact that you are from the city and that the people you meet in your life will make that link? I would suppose you have similar issues with people referencing the Beatles?
You not being a football fan, or from Glasgow, I would not expect you are ever in a position to ask anyone their knowledge or opinion of Rangers Football Club. I of course am the opposite to you, so will have a contrary view of our place in the world.
My mention of ex-pat Scots and Irish was not to state that every Rangers supporter abroad is of Celtic ancestry, merely that in over 100 years of our club's existence, many Scots have emigrated and spread knowledge of our club, thus my reference to those they have influenced. How many of them are the target audience for BBC Worldwide would again be difficult to calculate.
Maybe there is an indigenous Nigerian Rangers supporter who would be willing to give his opinion on the matter, if only he had the necessary computer on which to air his grievance.
Sorry to everyone else for hijacking the thread, for what it's worth, I believe there is something in some Scots' mindset that wants (needs) to feel slighted in order to justify their irrationalities. I have as little time for that attitude as I do the many ignorant little Englanders on the other side.
Standard Charter gave a real number, and those tend not to be plucked from thin air. They didn't give their methodology probably because this wasn't an article on Liverpool's global reach, instead it was on why banking companies sponsor football. You're comparing it to things that aren't comparable. Oranges and apples are both fruit, but it doesn't make them as comparable as a braeburn and a pink lady.
I get that you're a Rangers fan now, and that you don't want your club "diminished" or however you're taking this, but you being a fan doesn't make them a bigger club. It'd be nice for you if they were big in China because then they'd get more money, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't.
BBC World is geared towards "natives" of the other countries of the world who speak English. Mostly business people, which is why they show business adverts and have a million and one "Business Reports". It's not really for the casual viewer like BBC News in the UK is. If Rangers news would boost their audience, they'd report it. They spend a ridiculous amount of time on cricket news because of the fan base on the sub-continent.
Anyway, I feel we're going to continue to disagree over this so we might as well leave it. You seem like a reasonable person, so let's agree to disagree and move on to whatever the BBC is doing now to destroy Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland and Northern England and the West Country and South London or wherever it is today
Standard Charter gave a real number, and those tend not to be plucked from thin air. They didn't give their methodology probably because this wasn't an article on Liverpool's global reach, instead it was on why banking companies sponsor football. You're comparing it to things that aren't comparable. Oranges and apples are both fruit, but it doesn't make them as comparable as a braeburn and a pink lady.
I get that you're a Rangers fan now, and that you don't want your club "diminished" or however you're taking this, but you being a fan doesn't make them a bigger club. It'd be nice for you if they were big in China because then they'd get more money, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't.
BBC World is geared towards "natives" of the other countries of the world who speak English. Mostly business people, which is why they show business adverts and have a million and one "Business Reports". It's not really for the casual viewer like BBC News in the UK is. If Rangers news would boost their audience, they'd report it. They spend a ridiculous amount of time on cricket news because of the fan base on the sub-continent.
Anyway, I feel we're going to continue to disagree over this so we might as well leave it. You seem like a reasonable person, so let's agree to disagree and move on to whatever the BBC is doing now to destroy Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland and Northern England and the West Country and South London or wherever it is today
Sorry BMoiz, whilst I agree that we are going round in circles somewhat, I have to again take issue with your stance.
I agree that your link wasn't an article on Liverpool's global reach, that has been my argument all along.
In financial terms, Liverpool (as their own brand and as a member club of the richest league in the World) utterly dwarf Rangers, post Premiership anyway. The key point in the article that you posted (and the REAL reason for the sponsorship deal) is that Liverpool are on television for 90,000 hours a year in the target territories. Whether this is because of their specific popularity or of the EPL in general is open to debate.
From the people that I have spoken to about Liverpool Football Club around the world, strangely it is not the balance sheet or who's logo is printed on their shirt that appeals to them. They are Liverpool supporters because of their domestic and European dominance over the late 70's and early 80's, their style of play, world class players. How many of those 60 million Chinese will know of that history?
The same can be said about my discussions with people around the world about Rangers, admittedly not to the same extent. You see, having an interest in and knowledge of football as a sport, rather than as a business, will give me a different perception of the popularity of my club and the game in general.
If finance is the basis of your argument over the size of football clubs then you could argue that Manchester City are the "biggest" club in the world and that teams such as Blackburn Rovers are bigger than Rangers, simply because their attachment to a cash cow makes them appealing to investors.
between that and the stories on Libya, Murdoch's takeover of Sky, the Welsh referendum, the 7:7 inquest, Egypt, and a Glasgow production of Lord of the Flies, there was typically little of specific interest only to people in England.
between that and the stories on Libya, Murdoch's takeover of Sky, the Welsh referendum, the 7:7 inquest, Egypt, and a Glasgow production of Lord of the Flies, there was typically little of specific interest only to people in England.
funny, that.
Iain
That'll be the same cringemaking Glasgow ballet report that listed Paisley as a SUBURB of Glasgow? Hmmm, trying telling the good people of Paisley that they don't in fact live in their own town with it's own football club, council area and even University, according to their supposed national broadcaster they live in a suburb of Glasgow?! Damn fine reporting there!
...and I suppose all the people who live in these places which are supposed to be " near Glasgow " pay their council taxes to Glasgow City ? :rolleyes:
If they don't then the place they live in cannot possibly be called a suburb of Glasgow.
Mind you the ebc thinks that Scotland is a suburb of England, so I expect that's where the thinking comes from.:rolleyes:
OK - so if surrounding areas of Glasgow, within Greater Glasgow, cannot reasonably be described as suburbs of Glasgow, because they don't fall within Glasgow City itself, what areas can be described as suburbs of Glasgow?
and how did this work before Strathclyde was dissolved?
but your really showing yourself up if you're seriously arguing that Glasgow = Glasgow City.
it doesn't, any more than Manchester = Manchester City, or London = City of London.
or are you going to argue that anyone who doesn't pay council tax to the City of London doesn't live in London?
OK - so if surrounding areas of Glasgow, within Greater Glasgow, cannot reasonably be described as suburbs of Glasgow, because they don't fall within Glasgow City itself, what areas can be described as suburbs of Glasgow?
and how did this work before Strathclyde was dissolved?
but your really showing yourself up if you're seriously arguing that Glasgow = Glasgow City.
it doesn't, any more than Manchester = Manchester City, or London = City of London.
or are you going to argue that anyone who doesn't pay council tax to the City of London doesn't live in London?
Iain
I can't be bothered going down this road, as it will just end up in the usual " are you saying"....:(
there's no road to go down, except to concede that Paisley falls within Greater Glasgow, and as such it was perfectly reasonable to describe it as a suburb of Glasgow.
when you say "I can't be bothered going down this road, as it will just end up in the usual " are you saying"..."
you really mean:
'i don't have the good grace to concede i was wrong'.
i mean seriously - if you're just going to trot that line out each time i disagree with you (even though i've put forward why i disagree with you, (perfectly reasonably, and perfectly politely by the way), then its perhaps not worth replying to anything i say.
and then, to have the gall to add a sad little face, as if i've done something wrong is just plain ridiculous.
OK - so if surrounding areas of Glasgow, within Greater Glasgow, cannot reasonably be described as suburbs of Glasgow, because they don't fall within Glasgow City itself, what areas can be described as suburbs of Glasgow?
and how did this work before Strathclyde was dissolved?
but your really showing yourself up if you're seriously arguing that Glasgow = Glasgow City.
it doesn't, any more than Manchester = Manchester City, or London = City of London.
or are you going to argue that anyone who doesn't pay council tax to the City of London doesn't live in London?
Iain
This is getting silly now. To compare the 'City of London' with the Glasgow City council area shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scottish unitary council system. Glasgow City actually covers a substantial area and plenty of suburbs that are attached to the city. By comparison, Paisley is in an entirely separate area and the term 'Greater Glasgow' is loose at best. Would you describe any town being in Greater Manchester as being a suburb of Manchester? Doubtful.
And the football argument is moot. Partick Thistle are undoubtably a Goasgow team. Good luck telling St Mirren fans that their team is likewise a Glasgow club.
This is getting silly now. To compare the 'City of London' with the Glasgow City council area shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scottish unitary council system. Glasgow City actually covers a substantial area and plenty of suburbs that are attached to the city. By comparison, Paisley is in an entirely separate area and the term 'Greater Glasgow' is loose at best. Would you describe any town being in Greater Manchester as being a suburb of Manchester? Doubtful.
And the football argument is moot. Partick Thistle are undoubtably a Goasgow team. Good luck telling St Mirren fans that their team is likewise a Glasgow club.
i know Glasgow City is now a unitary authority, but Greater Glasgow consists of more than just Glasgow City.
which is not vague at all, but covers the areas listed here, and is recognised by the General Register Office of Scotland.
there's no road to go down, except to concede that Paisley falls within Greater Glasgow, and as such it was perfectly reasonable to describe it as a suburb of Glasgow.
when you say "I can't be bothered going down this road, as it will just end up in the usual " are you saying"..."
you really mean:
'i don't have the good grace to concede i was wrong'.
i mean seriously - if you're just going to trot that line out each time i disagree with you (even though i've put forward why i disagree with you, (perfectly reasonably, and perfectly politely by the way), then its perhaps not worth replying to anything i say.
and then, to have the gall to add a sad little face, as if i've done something wrong is just plain ridiculous.
Comments
As you well know, it was not the use of the word can that offended me, it was the inference that I was unaware of the function of search engines on the internet.
You ask a very good question about why the large Rangers fanbase does not exist on the internet. I personally have no idea and will take your word for it that they don't. However, if you are using Standard Charter's quote as proof that Liverpool does have 130 million fans, then I see no point in discussing this further.
Standard Charter are exactly like any other global company that has invaded football in England over the last 20 years, keen to have a piece of the ever expanding pie until the "real fans" (you know, the ones who actually put money into the club) are forgotten in the rush to expand the "global appeal". How is the 130 million measured? Was there a global football census carried out? Who paid for it? Or was it just a soundbite to appease the local fans in Liverpool by presenting the illusion that Asia is a hotbed of diehard Kopites?
You and your sources strike me as that of a post Premiership football fan with phrases such as "global reach" being used in place of honours won or famous players.
You have already stated that the Premiership is sold across the world and of course that will open new markets and enhance the global reach of English clubs, but consider this...
Earlier you stated that you wanted to compare like with like, that being the case why are you comparing Liverpool and Rangers in the first place? We do not have access to Sky's money or to grow our loyal support through worldwide sponsorship deals.
That being the case, surely the figures (and range of territories covered) in the link I provided goes some way to proving how large Rangers have historically been and continue to be based on ex-pat Scots and Irish, and the people that they have influenced.
I would say that alone justifies the Rangers result being read out last Thursday.
Don't infer things then
Right, so Standard Charter don't count because, despite them being a worldwide brand, they're only doing it to appease Liverpudlians. And the best way to express that is in... an Asian business paper? I'm sorry, but your argument is collapsing around you.
My arguments are based on the fact that people require every single perceived slight against Scotland to be thoroughly debunked. I hate footbal. I really, really hate it and if Liverpool FC disappeared tomorrow I would dance in the streets because it bores me to absolute tears. Everyone assumes that if you're from Liverpool you should care about football and it kills me. So that's the second thing you've got wrong through assumptions.
Why am I comparing Liverpool with Rangers? Because Koala said that they're equal. I wouldn't have called them equal. I would say Liverpool are a bigger and better recognised brand.
Again, BBC World isn't a service for expat Brits. It's for the international community. Just because expats and those around them like Rangers doesn't mean that the rest of the world do, as opposed to a club like Liverpool or Man Utd who do have a fanbase outside expat communities. BBC World is a commercial channel and they show the news most relevant to their target audience.
I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse now.
I did not state that Standard Charter don't count, simply that the quotation you are using as the basis of your argument has no substance.
I work for a "global brand" who have a customer base of 250 million. How do we prove this figure? We have systems and MI to calculate it. How do Liverpool or Standard Charter "prove" that Liverpool have a global fanbase of 130 million? Do you have any idea about how much it would cost to prove this statistic, never mind the logistics involved in carrying it out. Hence, to my mind, it is no more worthwhile than stating that Rangers have "millions" of fans. Just because it is presented as a more specific number, and by a global company, does not make it any more viable. It is a soundbite from a press release regarding a very large financial deal, no more, no less. The same as Torres stating that he would be at Liverpool for life, meaningless tosh to ingratiate themselves with their new beau.
I am not discussing a slight against Scotland, I am discussing your lack of knowledge of the history and reach of Rangers Football Club. Now knowing that you have no interest in football makes your ignorance of my club a little easier to take, but that is eroded by the fact that you feel that you are in the position to comment on what size my team is.
Could your perception that Liverpool are vastly more popular worldwide come from the fact that you are from the city and that the people you meet in your life will make that link? I would suppose you have similar issues with people referencing the Beatles?
You not being a football fan, or from Glasgow, I would not expect you are ever in a position to ask anyone their knowledge or opinion of Rangers Football Club. I of course am the opposite to you, so will have a contrary view of our place in the world.
My mention of ex-pat Scots and Irish was not to state that every Rangers supporter abroad is of Celtic ancestry, merely that in over 100 years of our club's existence, many Scots have emigrated and spread knowledge of our club, thus my reference to those they have influenced. How many of them are the target audience for BBC Worldwide would again be difficult to calculate.
Maybe there is an indigenous Nigerian Rangers supporter who would be willing to give his opinion on the matter, if only he had the necessary computer on which to air his grievance.
Sorry to everyone else for hijacking the thread, for what it's worth, I believe there is something in some Scots' mindset that wants (needs) to feel slighted in order to justify their irrationalities. I have as little time for that attitude as I do the many ignorant little Englanders on the other side.
Standard Charter gave a real number, and those tend not to be plucked from thin air. They didn't give their methodology probably because this wasn't an article on Liverpool's global reach, instead it was on why banking companies sponsor football. You're comparing it to things that aren't comparable. Oranges and apples are both fruit, but it doesn't make them as comparable as a braeburn and a pink lady.
I get that you're a Rangers fan now, and that you don't want your club "diminished" or however you're taking this, but you being a fan doesn't make them a bigger club. It'd be nice for you if they were big in China because then they'd get more money, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't.
BBC World is geared towards "natives" of the other countries of the world who speak English. Mostly business people, which is why they show business adverts and have a million and one "Business Reports". It's not really for the casual viewer like BBC News in the UK is. If Rangers news would boost their audience, they'd report it. They spend a ridiculous amount of time on cricket news because of the fan base on the sub-continent.
Anyway, I feel we're going to continue to disagree over this so we might as well leave it. You seem like a reasonable person, so let's agree to disagree and move on to whatever the BBC is doing now to destroy Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland and Northern England and the West Country and South London or wherever it is today
Up to a point ...yes. But I couldn't take all the facts into consideration as I hadn't been informed that Man C was playing that night.
However IF I had known, that post would not have been made.
No matter what...I still think it is odd that 3 UK teams reach the last 16 of a major tournament , and only one gets mentioned.
Sorry BMoiz, whilst I agree that we are going round in circles somewhat, I have to again take issue with your stance.
I agree that your link wasn't an article on Liverpool's global reach, that has been my argument all along.
In financial terms, Liverpool (as their own brand and as a member club of the richest league in the World) utterly dwarf Rangers, post Premiership anyway. The key point in the article that you posted (and the REAL reason for the sponsorship deal) is that Liverpool are on television for 90,000 hours a year in the target territories. Whether this is because of their specific popularity or of the EPL in general is open to debate.
From the people that I have spoken to about Liverpool Football Club around the world, strangely it is not the balance sheet or who's logo is printed on their shirt that appeals to them. They are Liverpool supporters because of their domestic and European dominance over the late 70's and early 80's, their style of play, world class players. How many of those 60 million Chinese will know of that history?
The same can be said about my discussions with people around the world about Rangers, admittedly not to the same extent. You see, having an interest in and knowledge of football as a sport, rather than as a business, will give me a different perception of the popularity of my club and the game in general.
If finance is the basis of your argument over the size of football clubs then you could argue that Manchester City are the "biggest" club in the world and that teams such as Blackburn Rovers are bigger than Rangers, simply because their attachment to a cash cow makes them appealing to investors.
so basically then you're happy to jump to incorrect conclusions without taking into consideration all the facts.
because, as has been explained many times now, the timings of live news bulletins have to be exact and are limited.
although perhaps now you can see that it doesn't boil down to an England / Scotland divide.
Iain
All the facts that were AVAILABLE were taken into account.
Correct ...just 99% of the time
and no - not 99% of the time at all.
Iain
Not when I was in the Far East it wasn't.
I knew Rangers would be playing before I left.
BUt.........If I was to rely on BBC World,I would have assumed that only one British team ( L/pool) were playing in the Europa cup.
And of course I would have assumed that only one team and not 3 teams managed to reach the last 16.
Acceptable.....I don't think so.
OK Ok................. 95%.
Final offer.
Iain
funny, that.
Iain
I know that 5 Live were too busy doing Mark Kermonde's Film Review at that time though :rolleyes:
The BBC did mention a Scottish Cup game last night, that was their limit of 'Celtic Nations' stories for this week.
I take it they also reported the SPL result from the same night?
That'll be the same cringemaking Glasgow ballet report that listed Paisley as a SUBURB of Glasgow? Hmmm, trying telling the good people of Paisley that they don't in fact live in their own town with it's own football club, council area and even University, according to their supposed national broadcaster they live in a suburb of Glasgow?! Damn fine reporting there!
here's a handy map.
are you going to tell us that Partick isn't part of Glasgow either because of who plays at Fir Hill?
Iain
OK - so if surrounding areas of Glasgow, within Greater Glasgow, cannot reasonably be described as suburbs of Glasgow, because they don't fall within Glasgow City itself, what areas can be described as suburbs of Glasgow?
and how did this work before Strathclyde was dissolved?
but your really showing yourself up if you're seriously arguing that Glasgow = Glasgow City.
it doesn't, any more than Manchester = Manchester City, or London = City of London.
or are you going to argue that anyone who doesn't pay council tax to the City of London doesn't live in London?
Iain
I can't be bothered going down this road, as it will just end up in the usual " are you saying"....:(
when you say "I can't be bothered going down this road, as it will just end up in the usual " are you saying"..."
you really mean:
'i don't have the good grace to concede i was wrong'.
i mean seriously - if you're just going to trot that line out each time i disagree with you (even though i've put forward why i disagree with you, (perfectly reasonably, and perfectly politely by the way), then its perhaps not worth replying to anything i say.
and then, to have the gall to add a sad little face, as if i've done something wrong is just plain ridiculous.
Iain
This is getting silly now. To compare the 'City of London' with the Glasgow City council area shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scottish unitary council system. Glasgow City actually covers a substantial area and plenty of suburbs that are attached to the city. By comparison, Paisley is in an entirely separate area and the term 'Greater Glasgow' is loose at best. Would you describe any town being in Greater Manchester as being a suburb of Manchester? Doubtful.
And the football argument is moot. Partick Thistle are undoubtably a Goasgow team. Good luck telling St Mirren fans that their team is likewise a Glasgow club.
i know Glasgow City is now a unitary authority, but Greater Glasgow consists of more than just Glasgow City.
which is not vague at all, but covers the areas listed here, and is recognised by the General Register Office of Scotland.
Iain
Iain
Whatever you say....You are always right.....
I am always wrong
So is Pedrock
So was Mark ( before he disappeared )
So is everybody else in the MacMafia.....