buster.

Lamont can always back his story up but the line will be about not revealing sources. Given some of the toxic one-sided sources he and others at BBC Scotland were prepared to use in the past then dismiss it, move on and prepare for Kirkcaldy.

Whether telling what you thought was the truth or not, throwing abuse wasn't smart.

Are you surprised or 'proud' ?

Main issue has been addressed, the club should just get on with the football now.

If he is out of contract and he shows up well at training then it's a no-brainer. In the short-term, gives us more cover/options up-front Further on, goal scorers can be lucrative. Offer him a relatively low wage and a wee percentage of any profit made on him.

Journalism is in somewhat of a transitional period in some ways and in Scottish football that has been at the same time as the long-running saga at Ibrox which has put many of them in an area of which they know little about (for Spiers this is nothing unusual as he doesn't know Jack Shit about football either). One aspect of this has been how social media has influenced journalists over the last few years. In this the Celtic minded have been very active and have set agendas that some journalists without particular expertise in the corporate/financial seem to have followed aswell as those who would do naturally. Another is that some journalists seem to be becoming more an opinionated pundit. Tom English falls into this group as he is often on Sportsound airing an opinion without having to back it up as a journalist would/should. And then there is the commercial aspect that say for a pundit will mean being controversial may get him more gigs or as you mention.... tabloid, more controversy more clicks/sales. Bottomline Scottish footballing journalism is low quality but then it'd true to say the quality is falling accross the board.....and dangerously, 'controlling the media' has become more prevelent.

I think it might have been Jonathan Sutherland of BBC Scotland.

This guy was top scorer in the Latvian league last year at a then 19 year old. This year only one other player at Skonto has played as many games as he did. On the negative regards level, Gary Kenneth appears to be on their books although not a regular starter.

Wes Foderingham at 'presser' Rangers FC ‏@RangersFC 9 minHace 9 minutos WF: The manager spoke to us this morning and told us he's going nowhere, he's here to see out the project. https://twitter.com/RangersFC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

According to these stats he has 39 league goals in 63 starts,.... is excellent for a 20 year old (2 years older than Ryan Hardie). http://uk.soccerway.com/players/vladislavs-gutkovskis/196260/ If he still has a contract with Skonta, those numbers mean they'll be wanting a fair sized fee although the fact he's at training with us suggests it's not the case/a problem.

Over to Lamont/Wilson at BBC Scotland and how they update their story. For the record, this is how it stands and was updated at 11.05am this morning. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34980312

I'm not particularly excited or a fan of giving KM another year as a player tbh but I'll go with what MW&Co decide.

It appeared clear to you but it wasn't clear to journalists who have to or should deal in facts. The fact was that MW hadn't at that stage been definitive in his language. That was his choice and he left it hanging but did manage to say enough to convince many of our own support. The Fulham denial has been said to not have come from the club itself and so is being disregarded by the likes of Lamont/Wilson. The BBC story is still up and was updated this morning to include the MW tweets last night. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34980312 Reading between the lines, it looks to me as if there has been contact between the clubs but not between MW and Fulham. And that some ongoing varients may have changed or are about to be changed but that it will be positive for the ongoing re-build. And that MW is staying and didn't have any intentions of going to Fulham. And that I may be wrong.

MW could have been categoric with definitive language from the outset instead of playing speculatiuon down, he wasn't. So you get a media feeding frenzy including 'info' coming out to make AL/RW go with tweets/a story. Accurate or not (at whatever stage) I'm more than happy to stand beside MW because I think he has been in control and I think and hope that the 'winner' from all this will be the ongoing re-build of Rangers.

As an aside, I thought Miller looked sharp when he came on the other night. I'd also mention that in a MW team it is very much the total goals scored that is more important than returns of individuals. 44 goals in 15 league games is the important goals stat.

I think many of us are too ready to jump on the media at any given opportunity. That isn't to say that they sometimes don't deserve it but by constantly and almost automatically directing blame towards them, no-one pays real attention or is very interested as it is diluted in the weekly deluge, (note. the RST going through formal channels v Spence is different). On many occasions, I think the most effective way to protest against X in a commercial enviroment, is to completely ignore them. The media are what they are and they have developed / been taken in a direction alongside new technology that has further downsized on finance, quality and often accuracy. I look at 90% of the footballing media in Scotland and see the same relative downsizing and the same lack of quality as the game on the pitch. Regards MW, I don't know how inaccurate the 'subsequent coverage' has been and haven't read anything on this since last night. However the Lamont tweet mentioned Fulham being in touch with Rangers and the MW tweet said no contact between Fulham and him. Lamont is a relatively serious journalist although he has been known to go along with 'toxic ideas and arranged doorstepping on TRFC directors' but I'd be surprised if he made the tweet up. Begs the question of from what source did the info come. The other thing I'd say is that MW is intelligent and didn't take the siege mentality route because he knew it can only go so far and that entertaining football and communication were all good for him, the team, the club and filling Ibrox. He should also know that the media would be all over this Fulham link like a feeding frenzy. So it was up to him how he wanted to play it and to a great extent, lead it. Here IMO is the most impoprtant thing, MW hasn't just got a magic hat for footballing matters,...I think he has a good heid for a game that combines poker and chess. That heid I think is joined by determination and drive to get by any obstacles that are put in his way and this I think is where he differs from the likes of PLG. I am hoping that what became a predictable media circus will have actually been constructive for the ongoing development of the football operation.

Mark Warburton ‏@MarkWarburton9 4 minhace 4 minutos Both bemused and frustrated by shockingly incorrect stories from certain media outlets. I am going nowhere and no club has approached me

Calscott For a club to see MW as a good fit and for them to get real on-going benefit, they must be prepared to allow him time and control to set-up and develop the football operation as he and his team want. If MW maintains his MO it reduces realistic/constructive options for him significantly in an increasingly impatient sector (in England). Moyes was/is similar in some respects. He became Everton manager at a time when generally more patience was shown with managers and over some years he established them as a top 6 club but his methods make him a difficult fit today. He did have a good relationship with the Everton owner which was very important and it's worth noting that the EPL today has many impatient foreign owners that want everything NOW or are desperate for short-term points to avoid the drop. If MW sees the project he has set out on at Rangers as achievable then I'd expect him to turn down any job offers like Fulham.

I think MW was sold the Rangers job as a medium term project with further options. He will have seen the potential for growth, room for upwards trajectory, room for improvement within 'footballing operation' etc and with his old traders eyes, will have effectively seen a stock worth buying into and with potential for 'profit'. The way I see it, is the most important issue for MW is that he doesn't see significant 'barriers' being put up or arising that could impede on the success of the project. If he did, then just as when he was a trader, 'timing' is everything.

You wonder if Mr.MASH may have already had arrangements in place with others that allowed him more say and at certain junctures, more control. --------------------------------------- He is power-hungry and uses it in a ruthless manner to get what he wants. It's often his financial wherewithall that he uses as he attempts to squeeze others into doing what he wants. Numerous examples of this can be found during his apparent time involved with Rangers.

Mash Holdings Limited.............. 8.92% Alexander Easdale..................... 6.45% Together that may account for 15.38% Figures taken from numbers on official site 'investor centre' http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/

The more important issue is ourselves, forget them. One of the very main reasons that Rangers haven't really realised their potential over the decades I've been supporting them is IMO the short-term fixation on beating Celtic to X, Y and Z. It was ironic that Sir Duped actually did something along the right lines (PLG) when he didn't have the cash to fully support it, nor the will to interevne in a timely manner to head off revolt.

The timescale that Paul Murray put forward prior to the season starting was IMO reasonable. To say that we will challange for the title next season is heaping unreasonable expectation/pressure on a football operation that needs time to be built, that is if it is to be built with firm and constructive foundations. If we seriously want to challange for the title next season it would mean going down a route that may end up stunting the growth of a modern and self sustaining club. I'd prefer to grow more slowly, with the medium to long term in mind.

If both Peterhead and Rangers see Hampden as the best option, Hampden/SFA would themselves benefit and the sponsers would no doubt welcome a higher profile venue................then surely Hampden it will be.

Tabloid / Rangers v Celtic angle / 'contentious' observation / Cue clicks and debate Reality: Unknown