buster.

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.

You stated....".....I think there's more to Keith's criticism than simple concern." Are you saying those thoughts are simply that Jackson doesn't get on well with King (compared to other directors) and if so, is there a specific reason for this that you think may be 'important' going forward..... .........or was it something else ? ----------------------------- ps. The KJ article was already in the pipeline prior to the events at Parkhead on Sunday.

Got what in one ? He alludes to something but don't know what it was

Frankie, can you expand on that please.

First we have to win the Scottish Cup. If we do then it would be a major achievement to just reach the group stage of the EL but given we won't be seeded and we'd have to get through three rounds of qualifiers, it'd be not inconsiderable odds against. Talk of winning the EL is like saying you expect to have Shakira asking you out this weekend.

They shout 'new club' but everything they do screams 'old rival'.

Typical re-hash with nothing new on controversial topic already squeezed to death by same usual suspects around the January transfer window. Tabloids, which are increasingly like comics (especially online) prioritise the commercial angle which tends to be any type of perceived controversy, scandal or crisis surrounding Rangers or Celtic. At present there is no news as such to support such a story so Jackson stirs the leftovers by airing his 'opinion'. An opinion that dovetails with commercial needs rather than look at the situation at Rangers taken as a whole. The latter would entail a lot of work and generally be considered too 'highbrow' for the readership. That isn't to say so-called 'broadsheets' are much better and much of the time behave like the new tabloids. The majority of the media in this country only contribute in keeping Scottish football a 'low quality enviroment'. Jackson and the DR did a lot of good whilst we were under sp1v control but it was mostly handed on a plate to them, required little journalism and met the commercial criteria. When it comes to actual journalism and bringing something new and interesting to the table, they aren't at the races and don't even attempt it. So expect the same tired old lines about warchest and promises during the summer. Meanwhile we'll be doing our business in a way that looks for value and to make the club sustainable. ---------------------------- We all know DK has a tendency on certain matters to say that little bit extra and exaggerate but we also know he has been an important part of a spectacular overhaul in the clubs fortunes in the last 14 months. The latter is far more important and gives us a secure base from which to go forward onto the next stage.

A fair sized increase makes simple logical sense and if supporters choose to cry for XM to be spent on players for a higher division, then should be understood.