buster.

Whilst touching on journalists, the general perception and first hand experience.............. Alex Thomson of C4 has been presented as an impartial reporter on the Rangers saga since he got involved. I'd take issue with that and could go into many strands of what is circumstancial evidence to back-up my view but in this case I can draw on personal experience aswell. I conversed with him by e-mail and made certain views/opinions clear which AT proceeded to use in one of his first blogs on the opinion of Rangers fans. Problem was he had twisted my words to suit his narrative. I got what could be described as a qualified apology of sorts but the blog was out there.

He'd have to change his style, his work ethic and become reasonably objective.

A sort of journalistic equivalent to Mark Burchill. He's essentially a 'fraud' and a man who became lazy and unprofessional. Instead of striving to improve as an all round journalist, he chose to take a particular route regards his career. One that dealt with a very subjective issue and it's ironic that in recent days he finds himself on social media indirectly moaning about a lack of free speech.

If as a business we had sufficient cash then the major shareholders wouldn't periodicaly need to lend the club large sums of money, knowing that it is only a matter of time until the next time. The intention is to turn this money lent into equity but when does it add up to an amount that swallows most of or all of the desired share issue ? The club need to become sustainable or a lot nearer to it, as quickly as possible but have to balance that against on-field needs that make Promotion neccessary and when we get it, improving the squad for the top tier.....so as to in turn maintain/increase matchday revenue, etc. The days of spending cash on large transfer fees are gone. The club is looking at developing a football infrastructure that will look to maintain/improve the level of on-field quality without the need to over spend on players. It looks for value in every pound spent. eg. if the club think MO'H is worth 300K, then it simply won't pay 500-600K. There is obviously a budget but it will be limited because of ongoing circumstances, some of which are unpredictable. However a good footballing operation can achieve without publicly throwing money at things as we've been accustomed to over the years. A good and relevant example is Hearts and how they have went about their return to the top flight. What we have is a situation where the media and others have got a hold of some comments on 'spending/investment intentions' that probably shouldn't have been made in such detail and using them to continually generate headlines, controversy and where possible, anger amongst our support. To a degree MW has had to publicly deal with the ongoing 'noise' but I'd like to see the board come out and remind/communicate/update what they can regards plans going forward.

I think that this has been the most annoying and tiresome transfer window that I have ever known. - Featuring shit-stirring media, bloggers and even many of our own (should be used to it by now). - Fans failure to understand our present circumstances and being hooked by general noise. - Our own fans who are like kids at Xmas who don't think they'll get what they want.

Given how he operates and his focus on specific goals he was never going to come in and throw lots of money at us that he'd never see again. As far as 2013 was concerned McColl made very clear from the outset (when letter of requisition went in) what he would and wouldn't do. I think he'd need to see a business that wasn't losing money hand over fist and probably that operated somewhere other than Scotland (or had good chance to move) before he (and his partners) would consider investment. What we have at the moment is a board looking to gradually convert the football operation into one that is sustainable but with one+ arms tied behind their back. At the sametime, the likes of Rab is crying out for the club to spend money we don't currently have but then wondering why X or Y didn't fancy investing in us.

I wouldn't disagree as I like Walsh as a player (v Oduwa) and I'd be happy to see our own players get gametime with Rangers before loans if possible. I'd imagine something similar will happen with Jordan Thompson (maybe loaned out first half of next season) for him to get gametime and develop.......Here's hoping Walsh comes back ready to compete at first team level. Managing players through development level to first team regular isn't easy for a number of reasons but it's an area we have to greatly improve on. Occasionally you'll get a player who can make an immediate step-up and keep his development going but they aren't thick on the ground given the demands of Rangers. We obviously missed the boat for bringing players through in the less pressuried lower leagues......

In effect King is replacing Oduwa. The obvious difference between BK and say Tom Walsh before considering individual qualities,...is first team gametime. TW has been sent out on loan to increase his gametime. Before the season McKay already had a fair bit of gametime in the bank both with Rangers and on loan (ie. better prepared for long run in team). If BK starts games it will because he is doing well or/and injury to other(s). I still have reasonably high hopes for Tom Walsh.

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant Judge says they seek definite confirmation of dates Green became/stopped being director, chief exec etc. To be supplied at later date. ------------------------- That would suggest no decision today.

All this jounalist outrage becomes contagious and spreads........ But what about the principle of a group of people (some journalists) who over a long period of time, act in concert with an apparent aim of traducing the name of the supporters of one particular football club. Some of the material or 'evidence' they use coming from directly from themselves and their accounts of such. PMGB AT (C4) Roy Greenslade etc Is this journalism or an organised attack,.......... opportunistically looking for and/or creating & embellishing material ?

Why would that be ? What in your mind has he done to deserve that tag ?

That's almost as ironic as Irvine allegedly calling McColl out as "disingenuous and oily".

What do you think about Jack Irvine, the guy who sent the e-mail featured in the OP ?

You'd almost think................#Deflect --------------------------------------------------------------- Re. e-mail It's first rate ironic comedy when speaking to that particular list of 'characters'/recipients........Jack Irvine allegedly calls McColl "disingenuous and oily". It's like Hitler addressing senior figures in the Gestapo, telling them that Churchill is brutal. ------------------------------ At this date Irvine was in full 'crisis management' mode (a time when a poster called 'Applepine' emerged on FF who was almost certainly Irvine or under his instruction). Looking at the list of recipients, I'm sure the 'Easdale Shareholder Block' and allies would have at that juncture....given Irvine almost CEO like authority on relevant matters (retaining executive control). Think about Sandy Easdale, shareholder and apparent conduit from shareholder block of the 'mysterious' to RIFC............... and the continued role of Irvine as 'family spokesman'. ------------------------------- I look at the last paragraph in the alleged e-mail and wonder about the timing of Stockbridge at his coffee bar meeting and ensuing controversy involving Mark being made very public in the weeks leading up to the AGM.

1. MW already has a contract 2. New contract = Increase Outgoings = Less player budget 3. Length of contract has never prevented a manager from leaving if there was a will 4. Go and join Rab in the 'Calm the Feck Doon Room' for 15 minutes

Looking back, one of the few positive things the old regime (board and football operation) did was to give McKay a 5 year contract or he'd already be elsewhere. His excellent form this season will certainly make his next contract heavier and I hope he gets it signed with us asap. At this moment in time, I'd rather have McKay with a new contract than sign O'Hallaron. I never thought he'd make it. He just struck me as another frail Scottish lad who would drift but it now seems as if he has a steely determination and levels of application that suggest the real possibility of a good career to come. One thing that stands out for me is his bravery to keep showing for the ball, no matter the circumstances of the game, mood of the fans or if he is having a mediocre/poor game. He also chooses his moments to try and get by defenders and isn't as predictable as some widemen. Then there is his balance which was illustrated the other night slicing through Morton and scoring the second goal with his right foot. We could go on about composure, great goals etc but what is important for McKay now is that he keeps looking to improve in every way possible, that he develops up to the 'next level' and that the footballing operation at Rangers have modernised in a way to facilitate this. edit And regards the last point,......that the likes of Liam Burt and their advisors see an excellent footballing operation that will assist them in their career and make them more likely to want to join or stay at Rangers.

Would this have anything to do with Mr MASH contemplating relegation into the Football League and putting in place contingencies ?

If true we get further down an already dark and dangerous road. #Stasi

IIRC we released McGregor and he subsequently joined Hibs. ie. If a club are going to release player they have no say as to what he does.

Donkey lodges complaint after being compared to Stewart Regan

Re.Allan Hibs did what was in their best interests, period. They went out of their way to "thwart" their main Championship rivals,.....which is what you would expect. To appreciate who appeared to get the best out of the overall deal you would need to look at the three seperate deals between Hibs and Celtic that also involved Henderson and McGeough.

Ego's may well have been a part of the wider problems during the last few years but I tend to think histoically there has been much more than that to blame for the divisory evolution and that like much connected with Rangers it has been complex and at times 'dark'. It would seem as Sir Duped alongside Toxic Jack recognised a need to divide the support when organised and relevant dissent was being shown towards the running of the club (RST/'We Deserve Better'). Without going through subsequent events piecemeal, the dark arts seemed to encourage, feed, maximise, sow seeds, discredit, or do whatever where neccessary to help along any natural problems, controversies and differences that would arise. The obvious goals were to 'control' and limit fans (groups) influence. The extent to which this had developed by 2010/11 would have probably been an important aspect or selling point to consider for any potential buyer given what may lay ahead. This then developed to another level altogether through subsequent years, with a certain Toxic PR company never too far away. The jist of what I'm on about being that what has evolved isn't altogether natural and has involved 'dark arts'/politics. Hence, why I contend that the litmus test for going forward should be looking at objectives from the top down,..... ie. (the base broad interest is surely to enjoy and take part within a resurgent and successful football club). I appreciate that may be far too simplistic and uninformed view.

When there are varying views and/or objectives there will always be disagreement. However the base broad interest is surely to enjoy and take part within a resurgent and successful football club. That being said you'd expect any differences of opinion to be of a nature that would be resolvable, that any individuals involved would appreciate the importance of the overall objective and be able to compromise accordingly. ps. One thing that IMO shouldn't be compromised is the independence of any resulting group from the club.

'The failure' as such was a not altogether unusual one for Rangers back in the relevant period. It was that we didn't have a good track record for turning good young players from the Academy into regular and effective first team players. To this you could supplement the 'charge' of not improving many players. This is hardly exclusive to Rangers and lists could be made for the vast majority of relatively big clubs. What we currently have is a desperate and often inaccurate media sensing a growing momentum regards Rangers, transfer policy, finance etc and as we go into the last week or so of the window it'll only increase. This particular article goes off on a strange tangent that is not really relevant at this moment in time.