calscot

I find that a weird statement. How can any of the other 42 clubs disagree with Hibs and Motherwell without putting self interest first? Especially as it sounds pretty reasonable 0- what makes them think they deserve the money? I see a place for a level of socialism where wealth is shared somewhat but can also see when it's at a ridiculous level. The thing is, I'm willing to bet that next year there will probably be clubs that vote against this so they can get their greedy slice of the pie - who will then be in the play-offs, looking at the figures and crying, "Oi, wait a minute!" The problem with Scottish football is that the clubs are all "me, me, me, me" and there is no empathy for anyone else, even to the extent of being blinded to the more self interested way of thinking - "That could be us somewhere down the line."

I feel the need to labour the point, so based on DK's convictions and who benefited from his transgressions and who suffered: Who in South Africa should be more wary about the future behaviour of DK - SARS or the company he's running? So who should be more wary in the UK - HMRC or the company he's running?

I don't think this is happening at all and has already been debunked. As has been said before, there always needs to be a line. Jail time makes an easy line and an obvious difference. You can eventually be jailed from not paying a parking fine. Who would you rather get lift from, a guy who disputed some speeding tickets, won a bit, lost a bit, and had to pay some fines, or a guy who got done for drunk driving and went to jail? What ordinary self-employed person doesn't do the same? The biggest difference that people are missing is that DK is by all appearances a friend of Rangers and has put money into the club in the past without return, while Easdale is not and is not considered a trustworthy person. Now simple question, if you have a mate that once helped you out by giving you a load of money for your company he didn't get back - but he was fined for being creative with his taxes and allowed to continue to run businesses without prejudice, so do you no longer trust him not to con out of money and run your company in a legit manner? I think the answer is yes. In fact, considering our recent spats with what has appeared to be a very dirty HMRC, he sounds like a fantastic asset. However, take someone who is not your mate, who has already repeatedly treated you with contempt, has a dark reputation for not being very straight (that people are too afraid to talk about), has been in jail for fraud, has already conned you out of money for the gain of his friends which will take years to unravel, has threatened to sue you for pretty much nothing many times so you have to watch what you say and do - so do you trust him with continuing to run your company? I think the answer is no way in Hell. Why is that so hard to understand? I really don't understand how anyone can think the two are remotely similar. Some people need to look up the difference between the words, "benevolence" and "malevolence". They sound similar but are very different, just like DK and SE.

What Craig said (although he says it with a lot more clout than me).

I doubt he was much closer to jail time than someone paying a parking fine really late. He was fined and the courts seemed happy with that and have let him continue to do business with no subsequent impairments. Didn't seem lucky to me. This is one of those tax things where it's all about interpretation and businesses sail close to the wind with it as they can make more millions doing so. I don't think there is a person alive who prepares their own tax return that hasn't tried it on a bit. There is also the huge criticism of their tax officials - and we know well, that they don't always play fair. I'm pretty sure what Easdale did was a lot more black and white. But in any case, if you want to be objective, fine versus jail time, then the latter loses. If you want me to draw a line, fine - I make it jail time. So yes, it's different, and pretty black and white. But it's still not the point, I've not been hounding Easdale about his conviction, and weirdly - neither have you. See again, I've explained my position to you and you're once again acting like you just didn't hear me or understand a word. What have I been warned about? Are you predicting that DK will be worse for the club than the prevous three years worth of boards? Your warning is like warning someone to stay in the middle of a busy road where they've been hit badly a few times, to avoid being run over in the cycle lane where they've never previously been harmed. It's not as if DK is a complete unknown for us. DK and Ashley/Easdales both have business history with us, which were the most damaging? Which were the most self serving? Which were the most benevolent? I don't think I'm the one unable so see. I'll repeat one more time so you have no excuse. I don't think King is perfect and everyone has there own agenda which has some component of self-service, but there is almost no evidence to suggest he will be harmful to the club - maybe you should be warning HMRC instead, that's where he has form. The fact is that previous board WERE harmful to the club, and their removal is something to be thankful for. That's something I don't think you are able to see.

Unless the injuries are taking their toll, the timing isn't exactly conducive. He's not match fit yet, has bugger all experience of our team or league, and we've only a few games to go.

Considering his popularity on here, it might be best to take the money and run... However, there is the chance that he could be useful if surrounded by a handful of better players and given enough motivation.

That's fair enough but you seem to be asking about why it hasn't happened yet, when the answers are obvious - there are certain events which have to happen first and they will take time that DK has not much control over. I don't have unyielding faith in him and although he has those convictions, to me it doesn't make him stand out any differently in the slightest from any very wealthy businessman. I believe that those as successful as him that haven't such convictions have just been luckier. However, the thing I have a fair bit of confidence in is that he is the best solution for Rangers at this moment in time, and without him we were in a much, much darker place with the previous puppet masters. The situation seems to me like we've been rescued by a police unit from evil kidnappers, and then some are going on about some of their less than perfect service records... There really isn't much of a bigger picture beyond the carnage of those previously in charge of the club. We really didn't have any other options at this time. Even the other candidates that have stepped in and supported King, and those on the sidelines that possibly had the power to do something but didn't - have backed him verbally. Our choice was DK or Ashley; DK wins by a million light years. And we've also rid ourselves from a guy who actually did time. But at the moment it's like the dice are in the middle of rolling and you're repeatedly asking why they haven't stopped and shown a certain number combination. The current answer has nothing to do with the outcome but instead having to explain Newton mechanics of collisions of two moving bodies in a gravitational field. Or in plain English: the dice are still rolling and we can't know the answer until they stop. As DB says, DK has had criticism on here about his timing - although for me we have to be careful about that as he is much more adept at this than us. It could be like an armchair viewer (a long time ago) criticising Steve Ovette for staying in third place for a long time before making his move - or maybe about the timing of the likes of Cavendish for something more current. Although business is more like a poker game, and it's folly to tell a top player how to play his cards, even if he loses a big pot. Playing the game to win is not that easy. I've just experienced buying a used car and that's hard enough. Now I'm beating myself up as to whether getting £500 off the (reduced) sticker price is ok or pretty useless. I found that very stressful, but the stakes here for DK have been much higher, as has been the personal investment of time and effort. So DK might not be the best guy in the world to take us on, but he's definitely the best guy in the world we have right now. But even if you disagree, criticising and questioning him for not doing things before it's even possible still seems a bit of a waste of time.

Don't really want to get stuck into a forum member but I don't know how you can say that. I recall he "mostly" repeated (incredibly often) a mantra that Dave King did not have enough money to invest, would never invest and was only pretending to be interested in investing for his own gain. With what has transpired, I can't see how that's "on the button". Lately, I find him frustrating as his new MO goes something like, "When will DK invest more money", for which he is answered, "When the share issue is organised". He then asks, "Why hasn't DK invested more money?" Answered by, "Because there hasn't been a share issue yet." He then asks, "When is DK going to invest his money?" And also: "When will DK become a director?" "When he is passed the FAPP test." "Why isn't DK the chairman yet?" "Because he hasn't passed the FAPP test yet." "Why hasn't he passed it yet?" "Because the SPFL haven't done it yet." "Why isn't DK chair yet?" And so on...

Seems to me that to get rid of him with as minimal damage as possible, means having to do business with him. Kind of the epitome of business being heavily rational rather than emotional.

I think the crowds won't really return properly till next season where I expect a big uptake on season tickets no matter which league we're in. Of course it will be larger if we're promoted. That's excludes the play-offs which could be attractive like cup semis and finals. It's hard to read into the situation but it seems more came back after the new board was installed than after the new manager so for me the boycott wins. However, those boycotting will probably be mostly previous season ticket holders who are not in the habit of buying tickets per game and have probably filled their weekends with other priorities. I really do expect that to change by next season as both the Old Board and the McCoist factor will be gone. However, thinking about it, I think we'll be looking at nearer 40k than 50k (maybe 35k in the Championship), as a certain "glory hunting" (for want of a better term) contingent will not be back for now for obvious reasons.

Maybe when the fire fighting is over and they have stabilised the club, they can spend some time formulating a more fleshed out plan, and THEN reveal it. Wallace was given 120 days to provide a back of a fag packet plan, so maybe the current board deserve a bit of time to produce a proper one - and I'm not advocating another 120 days either, more like 90. Before now, I'd say that was the fault of the old boards, and they will also be responsible for it being more difficult for a few years yet. But if we believe in the new board then it's up to our fans to buy the season tickets, or their previous levels of match tickets and support the club again both with their presence and with their cash. I doubt the board can predict how well that will be realised in the close season and so scenario planning will be the order of the day rather than accurate forecasts. I'm pretty sure he's already intimated several times the order of his future investment and pretty much the when also. I'm not really sure what you're asking as you should know the answers by now unless you're being deliberately awkward. He can't invest until there is a share issue and even then he will be restricted to how much in the first one. We need a GM before the second share issue can be opened up. He can't properly take up directorship until he's passed by the SFA/SPFL. I think you know that too, or should do.

If we're losing income from the conditionals then it could be a priority. I suspect there will be more than one share issue - as the next AGM will allow future ones to be opened up to everyone. I think the first one will be to get us on an even keel, including squaring with Ashley and removing all the securities that go with that, plus a bit left over for the team. With the volunteers for the most pressing building works, perhaps investment in that direction can wait till next year bar immediately urgent work. There will have to be a budget for new players but I expect transfer fee wise, for that to be modest, it's wages that we need to cover as our wage bill seems to be hardly much more than Aberdeen's (7m vs 6m from what I've read). However, IF we're promoted and the board switch from syphoning money off to bringing money into the club, then we should have a dramatic rise in income - although the damage to the value of Scottish football in general, and the old board for us in particular, will likely slow any recovery. You might think we can't afford to pay back Ashley quickly but many will have the opposing view that we can't afford to hang about too long.

I think the main point is that Ashley will be repaid from the proceeds of a share issue - the club does not want to be in debt so debt swaps don't seem on the agenda. The crest is safe in the long term, once this is implemented, and the loan is interest free, so the board are not panicking. It should be sorted by the end of the summer.

I'm not sure if it's time yet for King to reveal all. Once he's the chairman should probably be the time. There's still a few hurdles to jump over first. I think the fit and proper thing is getting a bit absurd - a bit like the seedings in the cup earlier this year. The test itself is now portrayed in the media as something completely divorced from what it is the original intended result - assesing whether someone is actually fit and proper. It seems Dave King is more fit and proper than most chairman that we (and plenty of other clubs) have had over the past few years and yet may be the first to fail the test on what is probably irrelevant and erroneous evidence and criteria. In fact, I'm sure if you scrutinised the likes of Diamond in the same way, I think he would likely fail this trial by ignorant media speculation. For me, all the chairmen in the old SPL bar one, have already shown they are not fit and proper and have failed their fiduciary duties. The irony is that those who will actually be adjudicating would also fail the fit and proper test for their jobs merely by scrutinising their record of performance and outlandish decisions. It seems when it comes to Rangers, you can be as criminal as you like if you are harmful to the club, heaven forbid you're actually interested in the improving the welfare of the club and the red flags come out waving in a frenzy.

It's a long time ago but I strongly remember him thumping the post in that game with a fabulous bicycle kick.

Maybe it's just me but people seem to be forgetting something about Celtic in the last few season - yes, success is easy when you have 4 to 10 times the resources of all the other teams, but we've never had that and probably never will in the top tier. It's that bit harder when you have a peer, which is the usual case for the OF.

I remember when Mohsni was on trial in the close season, he was getting rave reviews by the fans and played well against Newcastle. I think that suggests he has some playing qualities. It seems to me that his downside that was not on view at the time, is his catastrophic mistakes and his predisposition to losing the plot. His problem does not seem to be his lack of ability.

Actually you didn't. You just repeated yourself without any qualification with relevance to my post. That seems to be aiming a lot lower than you seemed to be hinting at in your earlier posts. Again you missing the point by being simplistic, when ironically the point is that it's not so simplistic. Just being a reknowned foreign manager doesn't automatically make a good fit. Just because one failed doesn't mean we shouldn't try another one. The point is that it's quite complex and thus there are far more important criteria than whether someone was based on the continent. For example, is an Albanian automatically better? PLG showed you can tick all the boxes and still not guarantee anything. More relevant to us, Aberdeen took Ferguson, a Scottish based manager, on with no European experience and then won the league and European trophy with two Old Firm rivals. There are no simple rules, it should be about getting the best guy for the job, no matter where he's from. Demonstrating previous European success is something would be desireable though - but as my point says, if that's the case would they be interested in us right now? There are too many clubs with more money than us, in far better leagues, for us to compete as a recovering club just stepping back into the top tier of a footballing country that's in the dolldrums. I think it's obvious that if we try too early, we won't likely get the best possible candidate.

Yes and there's probably plenty of fat, skint, badly dressed guys with a bad rep that feel they should be getting a beautiful, long term girlfriend now. You seemed to have skipped the point of my post. Some might want Mourinho in (actually, you're about the only one here who wouldn't) but the reality factor says that he's not going to fancy us. We tried that with a view to three years, the guy lasted 6 montths. Ah, the foreign is exotic is better meme. You would think a Scottish manager had never beaten a continental one... Poor Man Utd, stuck with an manager on previously experienced in Scotland for so long. I'm not saying that there aren't better continental coaches than Scottish bases ones but you are comparing a population of about 700 million to 5 million. There's bound to be loads... But weirdly, Scotland does have a good reputation for producing managers, with a poor one for footballers. I also think we need a foreign coach but the reason is that I can't see much in the current generation where we've had a huge talent drain due to bugger all money in the game. I would also rather choose the best choice from the 740m Europeans (including Scots) rather than restrict it to 5m.

In the dating scene, you're more likely to pull a babe long term if you sort out your finances, get yourself in physical shape and improve your image. Right now we've none of that and so the difference in football is that we don't just need someone who will fancy us in the meantime, while we get there, we need someone who can help get us to the level we can attract a "babe" of a coach. (That would be pretty mercenary for dating so maybe not the most moral elsewhere...) The ideal would be the likes of McCall doing a bit of an Eck - starting well, getting us promotion and challenging Celtic for the title, while we sort our off-field nightmare out, and then having a poor season, allowing us to replace him with a top quality coach, once we're "studly" enough for it.

That's weird, weren't you recently arguing pretty strongly against the premise that an improvement would be possible with a better manager than McCoist? Maybe the wind changed again...

I find it hard to believe the member clubs agreed to this and I'm sceptical of its veracity. 50% before costs? Absolutely ludicrous. The whole point is to create some extra income for the clubs at the end of the season (as well as creating a bit of excitement for the fans), so why agree to give it away? Can't see how they could sell 20% after costs, never mind 50%before. But then everything was propositioned and rail-roaded as a huge package, and that's how you dupe them... Rangers can get by with this as a one-off, but it's denying bread and butter to the yo-yo clubs year after year.

Didn't know you could get aids from a squash ball...

To overcome our minimal potential income, we really need to do something radically different from everyone else and completely reorganise our club for maximum success without huge in-pouring of money. Is it time to send the new Chairman a copy of Setting the Standard?