As a Scottish publication, The Record has always enjoyed a privileged position in Scotland, and at one time featured great campaigning writers and journalists in its pages. At its peak the Record sold over 700,000 copies (1983) and dominated the red top market north of the border, a left populist line judging the zeitgeist well and leading the Scottish struggle against Thatcherism. In the 90âs the Record faced an âecossefiedâ competition (every paper now claims to be âScottishâ) and in a rapidly changing media landscape the Record engaged in a race to the bottom with the Murdoch titles and has floundered in every way, with circulation now some 50000 fewer than the Sun, somewhere round the 300,000 mark. The slide continues with the sports section plumbing new depths of sycophantic churnalism. If we go back to 2008/9 when the banks collapsed and Lloyds opened the books of the moribund HBOS it was clear to most observers that the party was over for the Fred Goodwinâs and David Murrays of this world. The decades of reckless borrowing and reckless spending (of everyone elseâs cash) had come to a shuddering halt and some of the biggest,â blue chipâ institutions in Scotland were awaiting the chickens returning home to roost. How did our great campaigning Record greet the sombre admission by Walter that the Banks were ârunningâ the club? By announcing a £700 million redevelopment of Ibrox, a gargantuan fable from the Murray spin machine, to buy some time among the faithful for his crumbling stewardship of Glasgow Rangers. This period was when good journalists should have begun to dig and ask why a Rangers manager would so publically confess to feeling the heat, this was remember the biggest story ever to hit Scottish football. Go back 2 years (ish) to when Alastair Johnston nodded in answer to the question, âCould Rangers go bust?â Iâm unsure if AJ intended that particular nugget to slip out, but the Murray regime certainly required some help to muddy the waters when such a worrisome notion was made public, (worrisome for Rangers fans and stock exchange rules) of course, Rangers ancien regime could rely upon the Daily Record to inform its dwindling readership that a nod, the universally recognised gesture of the affirmative means something else entirely, if it suits David Murray! Having been desperate to sell a now insolvent vanity project for 4 years without success, the clock was ticking for SDM and a sale had to be made, âto someone with the best interests of the club at heartââ¦..of course. When Craig Whyte appeared on the scene the Daily Record obliged with reassuring âfactsâ for the Rangers family; âbillionaireâ, âwealth of the radarâ such assertions cannot even be put in the category of weak or lazy journalism, this can only be conceived of as deliberate propaganda to misinform the public and protect the interests of a failing , but still publically vainglorious vulture capitalist, whose stealthy retreat from this mess remains to this day the elephant in the room of Scottish sports journalism. The Record will not change, to be so wrong so often and not remove the âjournalistsâ responsible is brazen and shameless. The BBC has responded only by placing Stewart Cosgrove at Traynorâs side as a chaperone, whilst entertaining, this too is a wholly inadequate response. Without question the media must take a proportion of the blame for the mess that has engulfed Scottish football over the last 6 months, with the Daily Record prominent in that hall of shame. New media has changed everything and the decline of the sports news media in Scotland will continueâ¦.. the age of the Bampots has dawned, and forums such as this grow in importance as this story continues to develop in ever more grubby episodes.
We will always remember the Daily Record, and will always be thankful for it. I think it was one of the better papers to put a fish supper into.
I don't see what role the media played in the tax affairs of rangers. Rangers problems were caused by the big tax case, nothing else. If the media had reported it, it still wouldn't affect the outcome. People should remember the newspapers are a business and print what sells. The only stupid thing the daily record done was backing david murray in this case, as they clearly are on to a loser. RTC might have done good work but he is not responsible for the downfall of rangers. That is solely david murray's title. Also, RTC never once published anything to do with rangers defence in the case, so where is his impartiality?
1: The point is eric that the DR have since claimed they could not report the BTT because of "Legal" restrictions, that is patent garbage. Anyhoo, they are supposed to "report", they did not report on the single biggest story/scandal to enguld Scottish football in years (Perhaps ever), what good are they if they will not report that? Besides, they are very fond of telling all and sundry that their job is to "ask the questions the fans want answered". It seems on this occasion the fans mattered not a jot. 2: Indeed, and by appearing to be totally partisan on the side of David Murray they as a business have seen their sales drop drastically, it appears their strategy has failed abysmally. 3: RTC has never claimed to be impartial, nor has he claimed to be the voice of the people, his blog only came into being because he and others saw that rags like the Record were simply not up to the job of asking the big questions that had to be asked, lest they brass off Sir Minty.
Absolutely correct. Well prior to RTC I read online about things that would cause their demise. I think it was 2006. Phil MacGiollaBhan, whatever people think about him, including me, was all over this story right from the start. I know for 100% fact that he knew of some things about Rangers that contributed to their demise for a long long time (2007) I don't think he ever reported on it. When nothing happened for a while I thought that maybe nothing would come of it. This information was there. Nobody reported it. I firmly believe that had this been reported when rumblings first started (2005) Rangers could have been saved. Yep and incredibly they seem to lack any embarrassment in the face of real journalists calling them on it now. I don't doubt that he/she would have published any mitigating evidence if there were any.
1. Partially true there is different restrictions placed on a newspaper and what an anonymous blogger can post. 2. Kinda, some people have stopped buying newspapers because there stories have been exposed as garbage but is mostly because the internet is an easier and faster way to receive your news. 3. He might not claim to be impartial but how can he criticise the daily record when he is equally guilty. I agree the rags got it wrong not reporting this case but they did manage a few exclusives. They are trying to find out the role of ticketus whyte etc, but until you have evidence they cant print anything, unlike RTC.
1. Both are publishing. 2. Yes, in part. 3. Equally guilty of what? He has followed the story. What exclusives did the MSM have?
That story was being mooted at the time. It wasn't a surprise in the slightest. EDIT: RTC said precicely that in June 2011. What could RTC have done to be more impartial? Make stuff up?
I'm pretty sure the Ticketus cash fiasco was reported online before the Record covered it, I may be wrong though. I don't see how RTC can be criticised for not being impartial when that was not his remit/mandate, the DR on the other hand have a massive responsibility to be seen to be impartial. That is the role of a newspaper, it's not the role of an online blogger. They for my money have never been impartial, see my (shameless plug here) "Succulent Lamb" thread for a few examples.
He could have reported both sides of the story. The point is how can RTC and its posters complain about impartiality when they themselves aren't impartial?
What is the other side of the story? It doesn't hold any water at all. this sounds an awful lot like the folk presently saying that Timmy Thomson has developed an agenda. The story is there. He is reporting on it/ The MSM is now part of that story because the did **** all. What was the best they could come up with by way of 'balance'? A completely and utterly irrelevant story about Neil Lennons taxes. It is ****ing laughable. I'll repeat what I said earlier. Rangers could have been saved if the MSM had done their job. No doubt in my mind about that.
Amongst the best football journalists out there is Graham Hunter. He is Scotch....He doesn't really write about Scottish football. I genuinely wonder why that is.
If rtc was being impartial he could have discussed rangers' defence in the case. I doubt it is as clear cut case as he made out. How could they have been saved? They got liquidated because of EBT's and that was all david murray's fault as he was the majority shareholder and director. Graham spiers worte about murray's spending and all that got him was banned from ibrox. Rangers fans didn't care about anything as long as they were winning trophies.
Rangers defence is that the payments were non contractual....That is it. That is the full extent of their defence. RTC has access to documents that debunk that. ...in fact, they blow that **** right out of the water. Why labour the point if it is bullshit? People knew about this as far back as 2005. The status of EBT's were discussed by folk as far back as 2006. Rangers ceased using EBT's in 2010. Imagine it was raised 4/5 years earlier? Celtic were concerned about the use of EBT's back then and paid it off. This was reported. If a bulldog journalist got all over it and applied pressure to Murray to get answers, then the bares would not have sat idly by and watched their club die. They would have demanded answers and not allowed Murray to get away with it. In fact, it goes back further than that. If anyone had questioned or thought to question the relationship between Murray and Lloyds then there is no way that the cosy relationship and the borrowing against borrowed money could have continued. Things would never have got that bad. You may have a point but Spiers was a lone voice against a tide of lickspittles. I guarantee if they had done their jobs properly and reported the facts the Huns wouldn't have stood for it.
I would have thought, and did expected at the time, that when murray issued his 50 million pound share floatation and then had to take a further bank loan ( dressed up as a loan from murray international holdings if I remember correctly, but clearly sourced from the bank ) to buy most of them due to lack of uptake from elsewhere alarm bells should have rung in the scottish press about how utterly,and obviously unsustainable his " business" model for rangers was....
Well done, you hit the nail on the head. You should always follow the money and forget the spin etc. The role of llyods has never really been examined but I believe they were the ones who brought ticketus to the table.
Would be interesting to know how many people on here use what they consider to be well researched information from the Internet rather than the guff produced by the media. This article encapsulates what has happened in a very concise and accurate way. Well done.
I could be wrong here, but I suspect that CG is relying on a fan backed share issue to make his money out of TRFC, leaving behind the debts he has run up to purchase and run the club. Few fans or media seem to question the current flurry of purchases and realise that the full payment will lie in abeyance for future owners. CG outlay on the current squad will be minimal, but the balance of payments will be left to those daft enough to back the share issue in the, according to them, holding company rather than the club.
