buster.

I wonder if Uncle Mike is underwriting their legal costs @ 'Litigation Direct' ?

There are many questions for our support to consider about their ongoing 'political' judgement, how they were influenced and how they might look to review that behaviour where necessary. This particular "why" that you pose is curiosity that might have been better placed in the past. People don't have to buy the book if they don't want to and as to the reason for timing,..... I'd imagine it be commercial having something to do with the proximity of Xmas. Another is that you tell a story when it is 'fresh' and there is more than enough material to work with as it stands regards regime change.

Probably because he has a story that he feels worth telling and that many others have expressed an interest in knowing more detail of what has been going-on............. This book will, I'd imagine fill that void regards the perspective from the front-line/'command structure' of the supporters who stood up to be counted. You can sit back and 'have a go',..... but Craig Houston got up of his bahooky and did something about what was going on and that should be respected,............ no-one is forcing you to buy the book.

Well worth a few minutes of your time........ http://news.arseblog.com/2015/11/arsene-wengers-full-interview-with-lequipe-sport-and-style/

The DR want to squeeze as much commercial value out of this as possible. Involve the Old Firm, controversy, direct tit for tat with emotive language being ideal.

Just a quick word on the media coverage. What we have is a feeding frenzy (from a commercial POV) as the media realise that they can ride on this particular wave and increase sales/clicks. eg. Today the Daily Record has a Celtic blogger giving it laldy and doubtless there will be a reply from a Rangers blogger. Low quality output on a complicated and yet undecided case is worth as much as fans throwing insults at each other at a match.....but then maybe the former is taking the latters place in the society of today.

I think it's Spiers who researches the anonymous tax experts on social media and runs with their overview of the situation. Alongside this he spouts contradictory qualifications that are designed to allow a claim of reasonableness and a get-out clause. Spiers gets by without doing any real traditional journalism and nor does he have an in-depth knowledge of the game itself. In an age when journalism is going down the tubes for various reasons,...... Spiers, instead of trying to buck the trend, has decided to jump on the downhill ride. I could take an opposing view from a real objective journalist who had gone out and did his digging but I think BBC licence fee payers get a raw deal on the money that will be paid out to what is essentially a 'fraud'.

The subliminal message coming from Rangers/DK is don't buy. Then it's up to each individual how they spend their money but I won't be buying anything that comes from Ashley/SD.

Certainly has his direct and indirect agitators throughout social media but some on Rangers sites are finding it a little harder to get their often subtle message accross !

I can partly see your point but it fails to take into consideration the majority of the fanbase who probably don't take such a keen and constant interest in the politics surrounding the club as you and are therefore are not as clued up or will they have such detail on the instant recall tap.

My interpretation of the statement is:- 1. There are things I want to tell you but can't. 2. SD are trying to squeeze us and force their will upon us and we are involved in a struggle against them. ie they are the enemy and we all must do what we can against them (maintain boycott on SD). 3. Direct struggle is legal tied in with finance. 4. The retail in particular is a problem (don't buy merchandise) 5. Ashley is making this personnel (ultimeatly against Rangers) 6. We hope that the criminal proceedings currently underway lead to a legal and financial 'breakthrough'. 7. The relationship alongside other things is complicating the way forward but we fight on.

I'm more than happy with what MW says but when it comes to pre & post match interviews they are fairly uniform. An observation rather than a criticism.

The audited accounts should provide at least some information.

As a support group/s, we have to try and move on from dedicating so much energy to internal politics and in-fighting and grow into something that reflects a capacity crowd at Ibrox nearly all wanting the same thing on the field of play. We could be extremely powerful and in the past this was recognised by the club owner, who did his best to fracture and divide the support at a political level. The scars are still apparent and bleeding. It's basically up to us to make it happen and will depend on our ongoing will/determination, our competence, our willingness to see the 'bigger picture', our ability to deal with problems and 'road blocks', our insistence to remain independent from the RIFC board (other than those elected to sit on it), etc. One step at a time and make the foundations firm.

Not MASH, nor Sports Direct or the retail operation say anything and have taken out court gagging orders to prevent Rangers from saying anything so don't expect anything meaningful to be said for the forseeable.

Yesterday, Aird seemed to be playing the game situation rather going direct. MW will have probably have told him to go wide, take the ball for a walk and look to maintain possession.

Aye, I only just recalled that.

I think the fans groups already merit a seat at the boardroom table but now they have started a process (joint venture), they need to show themselves capable of bringing it to a conclusion and moving on from there. As for choosing an individual, a process should be put in place and carried out. There are obvious limits to transparency and information flow....commercial confidentiality, legal gagging orders, contingencies/the legal process/sub-judice, etc....... but it's important to remember that there are already fans in the boardroom who seem to have the best interests of the club as a priority and the type of vigilance required and lacking/ineffective in the recent past won't be as extreme. That said, I'd like to see a responsible and competent, Independent fans group director on the RIFC board as soon as possible. edit The board didn't waste anytime in actually giving a prominent member of one of the fan groups a seat at the table but that didn't go well. So there was a will on the part of the board but in hindsight perhaps would have been better advised to have taken their time and made a more careful choice (everything considered).

We've been through a lot and past regimes seem to have left a complicated legal and commercial 'mess' that isn't simple or straightforward to put right and get on an even keel. The fans groups seem to be in the midst of re-organisation and if/when that is achieved they should be in a stronger position regards keeping an eye on things and why not a seat on the RIFC board.

IIRC King has said that there is. Further clarity for that and beyond would be welcome at the AGM but I'd imagine they might be adapting plans as they go, dependent on circumstances as they arise. One of the issues other than the court cases are the retail and commercial contracts with MASH/RRL/SD and the board have been legally gagged in this respect.

I'd add to Calscot's excellent post that there will shortly be a set of audited accounts and an AGM which will illuminate some of the issues being talked about and give a chance for the board to comment and detail the way forward. Given the circumstances, the main issue that I see is short to medium term finance.

Ya seen one, ya seen 'em all.................

I don't know when the list is released but I see the man who cannot see or is scared to make decisions, Andrew Dallas has a top flight game and the money that goes with that. Whilst Willie Collum goes from the CL in Istanbul to the C.I. Direct Stadium in Dumbarton.

Maybe but I think the more viable and salient issue is an improvement within the existing set-up. An improvement that encourages the development of technical footballers and harshly punishes those who seek to reduce the effectiveness by premeditated violence. Many dismiss Spanish referees who often blow for all kinds of contact and enjoy a ref who 'lets things go'. The upside to the former is that it encourages teams to develop footballers and in Spain, for a technical footballing culture to emerge. The 'Butcher from Bilbao' type player no longer gets a game beacuse they wouldn't spend much time on the park. Spain are now miles ahead of all other nations in the club co-efficient table and have won 3 major championships of late.

Scottish football should be spending it's scarce resources in the development of talented footballers. Referees need to up their game and implement the rules. It's one thing making a mistake on something you didn't see properly but failing to implement the rules (eg. OBVIOUS red card) is inexcusable. By bringing in another layer of costly officialdom you won't eliminate mistakes/failure to implement rules. You want to protect footballers and encourage technical development in Scotland ? You don't do it by having Gibbons and Faria elegible to play this weekend after their midweek assaults, ie. change the CO rules/scope to discourage managers from playing the 'Tokely card'.