buster.

Of course she knew. Same Police force was involved in the infamous 'Battle of Orgreave' (Miners Strike) and involved in a cover-up which would have been facilitated due to shared interests. Thatcher helped polute our society and send it down a path where we now see her legacy in various toxic forms.

Justice Smith had Ashleys number from day one back in the London courtroom last December. A vexatious, fat and rich bully who uses financial muscle within the legal system without always thinking things through properly and when someone like Justice Smith is prepared to do his homework and call it how it is then Mr MASH and his lawyers are seen to be wearing their 'birthday suits'. Ashley and his horrible empire have been on the ground taking a good metaphorical kicking for a good few months now. To the extent that you'd harbour realistic hopes for there to be lasting damage.

Agreed, forget Tory or Labour and think the 'establishment' or 'political class' and those who surround and help shield them. Forget divisiory side arguments and look towards an increasingly corrupt and malignant 'hierarchy' who serve themselves and hire professional liars to interact with the person on the street.

Regards that particular game, our options up front were limited and our full backs more measured in their attacking. Nor did Celtic attack in a way that left space to get in behind as was thought they might. We switched on and concentrated back to middle with very few errors and our success that day was based on it. The first bad/careless defensive error that I can remember came from Law.

For us to make chances from possession we need intensity and tempo middle to front. Those tools have been shelved for various reasons and the test is picking them up again for the Cup Final. Other than the St.Johnstone game, we have turned up for all the big games in a positive and effective manner. The League cup tie served as a lesson from which we changed our approach for certain games. However, this being end of season together with the 3 week break brings different problems to solve, including trying to motivate the players who will be out of contract and finishing their loan periods. We won't know how this will go until the Final has started but I'm confident the management team will do everything possible to ensure we complete the season with a performance worthy of a Final.

It's all about timing our run for the Cup Final. The League is done, the intensity, the urgency, the tempo are all down and have been since we put Celtic out of the Cup. The 21st of May is when we need to turn-up all guns blazing.

I thought current circumstances prevented a major capital injection (MCI) and the loans from directors/shareholders were what would be needed if and when money was required, until a time when a MCI could happen....but I may have got confused. The lack of a clear timescale regards this is concerning and may mean we have to hasten plans to become sustainable or at least make greatly reduced losses. This would require a relatively low wage bill which in turn means no great transfer spend and an emphasis on getting value for money and having a footballing operation and infrastructure that was solid and performed consistently. What is going to be difficult is to manage fans expectations and be seen to be supporting the management team to a reasonable degree whilst newspapers keep harping on about the '30M'. The club need to be clear about things going into next season. There are a 101 other intertwining issues and it's going to be a difficult juggling act for the forseeable.

If I was part of the club I'd be keen to see a supporters representation (via group/s) that was more unified and less divided than in the past. That previous division had been encouraged and exploited by 'dodgy geezers' in the past. So much so that I could understand the club pushing for this and seeing any contribution in time/costs as an investment for the good of the football club going forwards. It shouldn't mean that a new organisation can't hold the club to account if need be........although can understand the logic behind those who think it might. It'd be down to those involved to make sure independence was retained. Spidery senses were all too absent when they were really needed. This at the end of the day is about supporters deciding what they want, on the basis that they want to be part of the ownership and that they want to see the club do well. If it doesn't do a good job then funding will drop.

I disagree and think that it has a great deal to do with the media for the reasons already given in post #31. That isn't to vindicate DK for using it, he made a bad error of judgement. A number of circumstances have changed surrounding spend (eg. 5M loan paid off) / revenue expectation etc. Including the timescales (eg. criminal proceedings), AGM resolution votes res.10, other court cases that have had an impact etc. It would take an in-depth analysis BUT the media pick up the one soundbite and run and run and run and run with it. Meanwhile other people in the club speak of a 'sensible financial approach to signings and what may be regarded by some as more realistic timescales re. team being successful in top tier....But this is quickly forgotten as the media go back to the easy 30M line but without any useful background and subsequent impact of various events.....It's beyond them but that doesn't really matter because the commercial line for them is the 30M. That is the line that sparks controversy, gives web clicks and creates traffic. It is also the line used by those who have never fancied DK and the new regime. They cling onto it because it gives them comfort. It isn't comparable to moonbeams for the reasons given in post #31. ------------------------------------ As has since been mentioned in the thread, there are financial challenges to confront and these are more important and relevant regards ongoing debate.

For some, internal political tribalism is still the driver of how to form initial perceptions and reactions.

Surely it comes down to what the members voted for and over time how they want to take it forward / modify / re-elect / vote in new blood etc., etc. You have to respect what the members have voted for even if you don't agree with it. Give it a chance to evolve and influence that by voting, standing for election etc. If individuals are unhappy then I'd imagine they can leave although most will surely give it a chance.

Enjoy it Craig. I found that she never shuts up and couldn't even make a half decent fry-up.

It's a big deal only because the media want to squeeze it too death and help drive unrealistic expectation when they actually know that Rangers are going about their business in a wise and prudent manner within the circumstances that exist. It's the fault of DK for saying it in the first place in a somewhat hubristic manner but time has passed, our circumstances have changed, our policy has been made reasonably clear for anyone who cares to listen and not simply follow the media. Neither do the media choose to approach the wider issue with a wider view that encompasses ongoing circumstances, facts, statements, what other directors have said etc., etc. I've said that the club should come out with an informal 'state of the nation' style address every 6 months or so to inform the support of ongoing matters and plans. Paul Murray has previously done similar but what he says gets forgotten very quickly as the media keep trying to squeeze juice out of the same withered piece of fruit they had many months ago. This is nothing like 'moonbeams' and this particular lesson I think has already been learnt. --------------------------- I think it's a weakness that DK can be prone to. eg. London High Court / December 2015: Premature lunchtime proclamations

He made a rod for his own back with some of his comments -............ We know that and hope that he and the board have learnt from it. Paul Murray seem to be much more measured and realistic regards targets and timescales. He's trying to dismiss the issue/media -......... Given context and how much mileage the media have already had out of this it's no big deal. Just aswell his efforts on legal matters v Mr MASH seem to be done with much more care and attention.

I think we all know that DK got carried away in various press conferences when pressed on that particular topic. I think most of us accept that circumstances have changed since that point. Whilst regrettably learning to take what the chairman says regards transfer spend with a pinch of salt........ I am impressed with what is actually happening and how the club is being organised. Never in my time as a supporter have I known such a professional approach to the football operation allied with an attempt to bring expenditure into line line with revenue. All done with several ongoing issues that reduce revenue and opportunities for investment.

That's fine D'art but what is it ?

Regards seeding for EL qualifiers, it's more complicated than I first thought but would offer an unseeded team in say the second Q round to become a seeded team in the 3rd Q round if they were to get through. What appears to happen is that if an unseeded team get through, they adopt the co-eff points of the team they beat,.. for the draw in the following round. Dependent on numbers this means a successful unseeded team in 2nd Q round may become seeded in 3rd Q round. However if that team were to go on and win the 3rd Q round, their co-eff points would revert to the original low number for the following Q round. Kairat Almaty are an example Seeding 2015/16: http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedel2015.html'>http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedel2015.html Results 2015/16: http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedel2015.html Aberdeen are another example. Last season they were unseeded in 2nd Q round and beat the seed NK Rijeka. This meant they adopted NK Rijeka co-eff and were seeded in the 3rd Q draw.....although ironically they were drawn against the very bottom seed and were subsequently put out.

Scottish football is an almost impossible place for a promising or good journalist to prosper.

It's a strange moving-panorama but there are varying reasons as to why various journalists say and write what they do regards Rangers. 1. Those who are actually organised and at times co-ordinated in their efforts are few in number, eg. Alex Thomson. 2. There are those who simply dislike our club and it sometimes shows. 3. There are those in '2' that become embroiled in it all and seem to radicalise their output further, eg. Spence. 4. There are those who use social media forums to form their own stance, try to be controversial for their own commercial interests because they aren't capable of anything else, eg. Spiers (in the past he furthered his career on the back of a more structured and for us, damaging assault on cultural issues). 5. It's their opinion or their take on the facts as they see them. 6. They like our club and write/talk accordingly. 7. Dodgy source / Spin-doctor involvement, eg. McLaughlin. etc.

Over the past few years a XX pager on RM hasn't been the best source of objective and good judgement on political matters surrounding Rangers. That isn't abuse, it's generally been proved to be a fact. What we have had is members vote on X, Y and Z. 1. Those who didn't get what they wanted (some of whom going about things in a dubious manner) wanting to stir up trouble and seemingly not respect the vote. Do you not give the group a chance to evolve before agitating against it ? 2. Others simply registering their opinion and concern mostly regards the issue of 'independence from club'. IMO those in '1' deserve to be ignored whilst '2' suggests to me that there may be an issue to discuss. But is it not for those involved to carry the process forward and for the members to decide on how that will be done and vote accordingly. Alternatively those interested could simply agitate against it and attempt to destroy it.

SC winners go in at the second round of qualifiers, 1st leg on July 14th. http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/access2016.html Aberdeen and Hearts go in at the first round, 1st leg on 30th June.

I don't consider either very consequential although English is a better journalist than Jackson, which is like saying Ayr Utd are better than Forfar. I don't consider English to be directly in with the group that have over a long period of time made it their business to go after 'all things Rangers' in an organised way.

There is a poisonous boil that needs lanced but will probably just fade away over time....... shouting, swearing and twittering as they pass over the hill. The supporters group will have to sort itself out and evolve with the members being part of that ongoing decision-making process.

'Guy on twitter' and his friends have become increasingly marginalised as the club slowly gets back on it's feet. If members of X fans group, they will have had the opportunity to vote on some of the issues they are concerned about. A lot of these guys preferred Ashley and Llambias to what we have now, not to mention what went before so when do we decide that their judgement tends to be poor and their agendas old, tired and to be pushed aside ?

Thanks ! Not want to jump on you old boy but it just sounded a bit 'cloak and dagger' when it now appears nothing but a journalist not getting on with a chairman.