buster.

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

The die was cast way before Feburary 2012.

So if I can get you the alternative fats-o-fit I take it you'll be buying

MW in good form. Didn't hear any hot air from Spiers.

Pete, I apoligise for any offence taken.

Sensible discussion is usually good. Criticism can be useful and constructive. I wouldn't have had 'a go' at Pete if IMO he had stayed within those boundaries, but I've said enough now and the line is drawn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a loosely connected footnote, I would mention that there are seperate efforts from 'usual suspects/agitators' at various levels that continue to do their thing. Including discrediting anyone perceived as being or having been a 'danger' to the interests of 'the other side' within our ongoing corporate struggle. That list of targets goes from individual supporters/fans groups up to the Chairman/PM etc. Hence the reason that I feel strongly that this type of issue is something where criticisms and darker suspicions should be clearly differentiated between and the latter should need reasonable grounds.

If we take this as being correct then it's Ashley, as part of his general front, instructing 'SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies' to call in the loan. There was no specified repayment period for the first part of the facility but we don't know what other T&C's were attached and it must have allowed for the 5M to be called in. Again if it is correct, it would seem obvious that the timing was to embarrass and cause maximum problems for Rangers in and around the AGM and as part of the general corporate & litigatious attack on the club. I think the SFA and SPFL are limited in what they can do and that we should hope Newcastle get relegated, nearly as much as for us to get promoted.

I only criticise Pete's post interpretation skills because they are the base to his pointing 'finger of suspicion', which is the real issue. I note you have done similar, but in your own style. Talking about Kenny Miller or any footballing matter is very different to pointing fingers of suspicion at fans group leaders. Let's draw a line under this. Criticism is ok but IMO groundless and dark unspecified suspicion shouldn't be.

I mentioned that he was a moderator because for anyone reading, it gives more apparent weight to 'dark unspecified suspicions' than an ordinary poster, ie. "a poster on gersnet was saying............." against "a moderator on Gersnet was saying.............". I just think there should be a higher threshold for having grounds when pointing a 'dark suspicious finger' at someone. Especially when Pete didn't seem to be able to properly interpret what CH had said in his facebook post.