Frankie

Oooh Damour - what's a girl in love to do...!

Once again while a few banners may be all well and good in terms of creating pressure on the bank to achieve a cheaper price, us fans - the greatest single investors into the club - are left wondering exactly what is going on with this game of chance.

Agreed mate... I mentioned Burke only because he had similar hype, did well when he broke into the team but for a variety of reasons didn't make the best of his chance. Injuries or not, I don't want Fleck to make the same mistake so the physical conditioning you mention would certainly be agreeable in that respect.

Well, we can be positive and say, that's a good thing as it means we're not losing any of our important players... Or we can be negative and say we're not bringing in any players to supplement a squad that is obviously short on experience. Either way, I think I've heard the manager say we're not signing anyone before and we've gone onto do so. If we do move Rothen on, then perhaps the money saved from his wage could be put towards another loan player but whether or not that would provide value is open to question. I guess we'll know in 7 days time.

Good points Zappa... Fleck has the basic talent - we can all see that - but he'll have to do more in games unless he wants to become another Chris Burke or the like.

I've no idea if he was rushed back or whatever but his work-rate and fitness is questionable. As I said, I think his top-level career has probably been curtailed by his last knee injury.

Thomson was in good form before his last injury. He's not been in good form since so I'd rather he was dropped until he can show differently. Unfortunately, I suspect he won't be able to as his lack of pace and mobility is obvious.

Normally I'd agree but looking at him on the pitch nowadays he does seem to be somewhat lazy and reactive, instead of hard-working and anticipative... But I guess that can apply to several of our players.

Nail on head from BD...

Jury remains out on Fleck for me as well. I think the lad suffers from being over-hyped and it is easy to forget he's very young and inexperienced. Like most of our players at the moment, he's suffering from being moved about the team and being inconsistent as a result. When he does get on the ball, he does look dangerous though so I'm excited to see more. However, he needs to be stronger physically and improve his decision-making. If he can do that, then he may do the business in the future! PS: Wee Gregg Wylde also did well when he came on. Pacey, direct and confident - no reason why he shouldn't make the grade over the coming years along with the other lads we're seeing make the breakthrough. With all the hullabaloo of the financial problems and takeovers, it's easy to gloss over the fact we're seeing some impressive youngsters in the team this season. One positive to hold onto!

Too true mate... nice story!

Rangers snatch important point at the death despite dominating for long spells against defensive Hearts. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=198:rangers-1--1-hearts-player-ratings-and-mom-poll&catid=35:analysis&Itemid=67 for me as I thought he was very solid defensively and contributed well throughout the game.

I believe our wage structure is �£20K maximum so I doubt he will be offered more.

Novo is certainly another player whose contract we should be extending for what should be a nominal wage rise. A 12/24 month extension isn't unreasonable for a decent player who is versatile enough to be useful for the squad and who can score goals at any level.

Absolutely. The problem is - and this is what I'm trying to highlight - is the amount of conflicting information going around. Any buyer using fans forums to make their point through otherwise anonymous people is open to question about their credibility. Surely there are other more credible ways (mentioned previously in other debates) of sharing information and garnering support? There is supposedly at least one interested buyer/consortium. The fan groups are obviously being used to release information. As are the media - both tabloid and broadsheet. It has been said this is all with the backing of the current club board who feel pressured by Muir/Lloyds. If all this is true then why the flawed communication and poor organisation to gain support for a bid while placing pressure on the bank? Much more can be done as a successful Rangers team on the park in the interim means the bank don't need to sell the club cheaply. Much better then that an organised bid is made with the clear involvement of the support in order to maximise the chances of success. Smoke and mirrors is a phrase usually reserved for SDM. Well, he's not the only magician playing the game right now.

Unless you've been on Mars, the Rangers ownership debate will have been everywhere in your supporting life of the last six months in particular. From the 'official' newspapers and media, to the 'unofficial' forums and fanzines; from the 'official' fan groups, to the 'unofficial' singing sections; the apparent dispute between Lloyds Bank/MIH and those interested in buying the club has been a hot topic for months now. I say apparent because real, genuine facts are thin on the ground so it is extremely difficult for the average bear to decide what is and isn't authentic when examining the ownership issue. On one hand we hear rumours that Lloyds Bank - via the introduction of director Donald Muir - are in control of the club and attempting to regain their �£31million debt by manners that could cost the club its short, medium and long term competitiveness. On the other we have club chairman Alistair Johnston telling us at the club AGM that these rumours are untrue while the bank say they remain committed to the club's future success. The battle-lines are drawn then but the lines are somewhat unclear. Who is in what army and who is fighting who. And, most importantly, what is the prize and how much will it cost? All confusing stuff for supporters who look at the SPL table and see a six point cushion (in real terms) between us and Celtic. Therefore, as a starting point for those of us without the source with the inside info, what are the facts of the situation? Well, as reported late last year the club is �£31million in debt (as of June 2009) although our participation in the Champions' League group stage will likely have reduced that figure by a few million in the interim. To that end, the debt is owed primarily to Lloyds Bank who are involved in the club via long term loans as well as their shareholding in MIH. Nevertheless, Sir David Murray remains the majority owner of both Rangers and the MIH parent company and people under-estimate his influence at their peril. However, MIH do have alleged serious financial problems and, much in the same way the Rangers board had to renegotiate their loan terms with the bank in 2009, it is believed that Murray has had to do the same with the huge debts MIH have. This much is unclear as the company have delayed the reporting of their accounts until April this year - lending weight to claims he is having difficulty appeasing the bank in terms of restructuring. Back to Rangers and once again dealing with what 'official' information is publicly available we examine the club AGM where the shareholders were told the club did not need to sell any players and could, if necessary, 'trade' their way through transfer windows. Obviously this statement is open to interpretation but given we've not sold anyone (yet!) and contract talks have taken place with several players, Johnston appeared to be correct when speaking in December. The club also strenuously denied that Lloyds are 'running Rangers' as some suggest. Unfortunately this is where the waters become muddied - perhaps deliberately so and certainly by a range of parties - including the club, including the media and including 'in-the-know' fans. Read any Rangers forum (and indeed most newspapers - be it Jim Traynor in the Daily Record or Darrell King at the Herald) then the 'official' lines above are challenged. The rumours and innuendo are rife: Donald Muir is an agent of the bank; the bank want to reduce the playing squad to 14 senior players; contract offers have been taken off the table by the bank; Muir has held meetings with his friend Alex McLeish to sell key players; key club staff members (Martin Bain and the head Groundsman) have been 'sacked' then reinstated; the club is allegedly for sale at �£31million with SDM happy to accept a nominal sum for his 91% shareholding; Dave King is the man the fans must throw their weight behind; Graham Duffy is the only show in town; why are the bank rejecting good offers for the club; the fan groups will unite the support; Murray Park is to be sold to realise funds; paint banners and place pressure on the bank; the fans can run the club; etc etc etc. I'm sure there are more I've missed. To be clear, I don't know if these rumours are true. They may well be and, in fact, I believe some are but I certainly urge all Rangers supporters to be cautious in what they read - no matter the source. I don't under-estimate the intelligence or passion of our fans and to that end we shouldn't be patronised by any side of the argument. Therefore, what is certainly the case and the reason for this article, is that once again we're the ones being treated unfairly. I don't doubt people want to buy Rangers FC and I certainly don't blame them for wanting the best deal possible. After all, the cheaper they buy the club (or the bank debt); the more money they'll have to invest in the parts of the club that desperately require it. Be it an essential improved contract for Kris Boyd or repairs to a stadium built in memory of the 66; tens of millions of pounds are required to take our club forward. Again, anyone under-estimating the scale of the job needed to keep our club as a successful going concern, could be even more fatal than allowing the bank to sell off our assets. Consequently, more than ever, what we need is clarity and leadership from those that are buying (and those that are selling) the club. Of course, Stock Market rules may determine what information can be made available but, while the current method of drip-feeding unsubstantiated rumours to people via the media and unofficial fan forums may help apply pressure to a degree, we need more credible ways of reaching the support than that. After all, the online community may know and trust a few otherwise anonymous user-names, but how on earth do the vast majority of off-line fans - the often apathetic preponderance of the Rangers support; get access to the debate? These are the people any potential buyer (and fan group) need to reach if they want a successful subscription to any ownership model and so far the efforts to do so are below par. Across the community and at recent games I see Rangers fans challenged to open their eyes and be aware of 'the enemy within' our great club. Fair enough, I understand that mantra and, given I'm lucky enough to be in contact with a few interesting people, I also share in it to a degree. However, how can I possibly pass this message onto others without looking somewhat irresponsible? Despite the proclamations from some on the other side of the debate, there's no doubt there are problems at Rangers football club. There is also no doubt people are concerned about that enough to want to spend a lot of money during a difficult financial period to buy the club. For that I'm thankful. However, if these people are truly serious and want their efforts to be respected and supported, I expect to see more. If the situation is as dire as their plants in the media and their associated fan groups suggest by proxy for them, then the odd post on a forum and the odd banner at a game is not enough. We've heard the declarations of unity but there has been little evidence of it when requested. More is required. Meetings are needed. Credibility must be sought. Unification is paramount. Egos need not be massaged. Communication must be used. The fans should be trusted. What cannot be denied is that to be the owner of Rangers FC one must be a true leader of men. We want and need this leader. If you are serious in your intentions, then you must step forward. Are you Ready?

I'm going to try and write an article on this today.... The tactic of drip-feeding unsubstantiated info to people via unofficial fan forums may help to a degree but we need more credible ways of reaching the support than that.

Stuff is happening in the background but mainly still a stand-off between interested parties and the bank.

Interesting stuff - I guess we won't know for certain until a week on Monday...

I always make mistakes in my prose when smooth-talking.... Online equivalent of a stutter...

Radio Scotland's news programme at 4pm usually scans the papers (including the GT) for their news stories around 4.20pm. Will be interesting to see if they mention this.

A POLICE officer dislocated his shoulder trying to break up a riot between rival supporters after Morton's cup game with Celtic. http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/greenock/articles/2010/01/21/396233-policeman-hurt-after-ton-game/

I did say there were people guilty on both sides of the debate in detracting from important issues with irrelevant and repetitive stuff. The membership numbers thing has been answered by the Trust recently (on FF at least) and apparently if you check their most recent accounts (summer 2009) then I believe the number is around 1400. I doubt these accounts can be massaged in the same way someone can on a forum without question. Ergo, it is up to the person interested in the Trust how they take these numbers into consideration when approaching the overall subject. On Gersnet the point has been made by yourself many, many times and I don't think we have much to gain from repeating it. The reason for this isn't to contribute to revisionism but simply so we can concentrate on more important issues (in my opinion of course) - one of which you allude to above. Keeping such questions simple and not accompanied with chaff (or personal crap we see elsewhere) is arguably more likely to precipitate answers. If not, it gives people an easy get out clause to reject debate - even if in itself that is flawed as I've pointed out earlier. Similarly, if these questions are not answered when asked respectfully, then that also allows the casual observer to make up their mind about the intentions of those questioned. Maybe I'm too easy going but I do have a care of duty to the membership here and want to keep debates on-topic and easy to read/contribute to. I'm sure you respect that just as much as I respect the otherwise fair and challenging contribution you have a right to make.

Aye, about time he did one! Plenty other virgins and newbies out there who would want to join our ranks of self-important match analysts surely?

Is Fraser going to be able to do this? Not seen him online?