buster.

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.

There does seem to be a strange tendency for many amongst our support to want to harry, attack, suspect or whatever....any individual who becomes a known face, fan group leader and develops a media persona. I think many see CH as desiring and reveling in the 'limelight'. Some see him as a 'profiteer' (wrt social media: something started by agitators on RM who use the 'divisionary tactics). The 'limelight' comes with the territory and in my book, if individuals want to embrace that limelight and use it for furthering their Rangers related activities, their charitable or youth academy activities or indeed any commercial venture that might be of interest to many and might aid them in any previously mentioned ventures or help fill coffers that services rendered towards the interests of Rangers had emptied....then that is fine in my book. Frankie makes a lot of good points about CH and how he and his group were instrumental to focusing opposition to toxic regimes. Our memories are short and our analyitical prowess is often poor and easily manipulated.

"Whatever the result, King and his men will still be left with the enormous problem of confronting Ashley who had them in thumb screws again last week when he demanded the return of a £5m crisis loan – money which changed hands in another one of those deals with Somers’ old board." --------------------- KJ seems to be saying that the reason this was addressed at the AGM was a strategically timed demand for repayment.

But the grounds he puts forward are without real base and don't correspond to the weight of unspecified suspicion he seems to put forward. Fine if he doesn't want to buy the book or if he doesn't like CH and/or the things he does.......... but the dark finger of baseless, energetic, unspecified and general suspicion from a site 'super moderator' towards CH is out of order in my book (haven't yet written mine).

Has CH shagged your Mrs ?

What does that even mean ? If you are saying that this post from CH is a trailer for the book, designed to shift more copies and that the veracity of the information is dubious then again you are wll out of order, unless you have good grounds to believe the info untrue.

If you read the OP carefully and can interpret it with a modicum of sense, then surely you can see and understand the background to this. CH visited and spoke to SE with a view of facilitating regime change. For this type of frank discussion to take place, it is natural SE would have asked for X & Y to remain off the record. It appears that CH agreed subject to the condition of SE not to be in the news wrt Rangers, once he had left the board. Journalists who hanker for exclusives to further their career have to sometimes agree to staying 'off the record' when conversing with X. It must be frustrating for them but they know if they go against their word that the future will be more difficult. You talk of giving away information that might hurt them. Firstly it was off the record (subject to at least one condition) and secondly they were leaving Ibrox and if in the future revealed, it wouldn't really hurt them in any significant way. This is very apparent given the reaction to this news has been muted. IMO you are well out of order on this thread because the grounds for 'suspicion' you point towards are without base.

If there was a more substantial and hidden 'reward' regards the mentioned 'deal' or regards involvement at Rangers as a whole (and I stress the IF),....then I doubt very much if it would have been brought up in said conversation by the Easdales.

Might be more in this than previous speculation given the bookies seem to be taking it seriously. http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/fulham/next-permanent-manager Now Fulham may or may not want MW but the more important question is does MW want Fulham. I would hope not.

If you thought that at anytime either CW or CG&Co were good for Rangers then you were wrong, tbf you were far from alone in that. You say that they were quite popular for a while........but some did see that they weren't good for the club from day one. It's ironic now that some that were very wrong back in the day choose to exercise a vigilance of sorts towards one of our own. To say "it looks like Craig had deals going on with the Easdales" would seem to be suggesting something untoward when it is blindingly obvious that discussions took place but from the CH perspective, with the overview of achieving the objective of 'regime change'. The bottomline regards the book is that you don't have to buy it but to infer dark agendas or similar is IMO out of order and based on nothing.

WTF................. Where do you start with that Colin Nish ? You say that on the face of things CW & CG&Co were ok for Rangers before 'hidden events' came into view,....well that gives us an indication of your ability to read a situation and seems to be reflected in your 'judgement' once again.

We can speculate but we don't really know. On the face of it, the major change of late has been the legal actions (and their volume) coming from Mr.MASH.

It's easy to see how sp1vs and chancers have found it so easy to divide our support. Here is a guy who has sacrificed a lot to start up a protest group in our hour of need and saw it through to regime change having his motives questioned Now you don't have to like the individual, nor do you have to buy the book but you really should respect the guy for what he has done and recognise his freedom to write a book, which apparently is partly to fund the SOS football academy. Not to mention the relevance of his inside knowledge of the struggle and our interest that makes a book make sense. Writing a book is a commercial venture, the timing has to do with the Xmas market and the subject matter has to be reasonably fresh for there to be sufficient interest.