Tycoon Dave King set to return to Rangers as chairman

[Frankie 8,136]

At the end of the day King should and will be subject to the same scrutiny as all recent directors/owners should he decide to take his interest further.

 

Is he perfect? Of course not: his tax background is somewhat dubious; he was used all too easily by SDM; and he's certainly more of a lone wolf than a team-player. I'd also suggest his location isn't all that conductive to an active chairmanship role.

 

However, what he is, IMHO at least, is a better option than the current incumbents but, as always, it's up to King to detail why that's the case. If indeed the rumours are correct.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I listed the benefits of a CVA, you at least accept that surely?

 

I believe Green had Whyte well screwed over whatever the CVA outcome but I guess we can never know for sure.

 

then explain to me how he was getting whytes shares and screwing him?

 

no one has ever been able to explain that.

 

anyway forlan is right on the money. surely you can see that. king knew what was going on.

 

as for better off. hardly.

 

we would be bust again or ibrox would be gone and god knows where we would be now.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Hmmm, should be good news on the face of it - AGM resolutions 9 & 10 muddy the waters though.

 

I do hope King knows what he's doing and that this is a long term move beneficial for the club rather than a short term ploy to assist the incumbents through the AGM.

 

They do a lot more than muddy the waters, they are pure "Poison Pills" and should strike fear into the heart of any ordinary shareholder and fan.

 

Those resolutions should be voted against irrespective of who proposes them or stands to benefit from them, nobody but nobody should hold the power that these two resolutions would allow not the Easdales, not King, not the Murray's, not McColl.

[Frankie 8,136]

They do a lot more than muddy the waters, they are pure "Poison Pills" and should strike fear into the heart of any ordinary shareholder and fan.

 

Those resolutions should be voted against irrespective of who proposes them or stands to benefit from them, nobody but nobody should hold the power that these two resolutions would allow not the Easdales, not King, not the Murray's, not McColl.

 

Agreed. At some point it would be good if that was made crystal clear by relevant parties who can reach those that intend voting.

[simplythebest 0]

then explain to me how he was getting whytes shares and screwing him?

 

no one has ever been able to explain that.

 

anyway forlan is right on the money. surely you can see that. king knew what was going on.

 

as for better off. hardly.

 

we would be bust again or ibrox would be gone and god knows where we would be now.

Whyte was told he was getting involved when in fact he wasn't.

 

King makes a lot of bold predictions, like the recent one about us being in admin by christmas.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Can he return as Chairman is there not something in the rules about not being able to if he was a Director at a company that was involved in an insolvency event within the last 5 years?

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone refresh my mind as to the content of Res 9 & 10 please.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Whyte was told he was getting involved when in fact he wasn't.

 

King makes a lot of bold predictions, like the recent one about us being in admin by christmas.

 

conning whyte is easy when you don''t need him. when you need his shares how do you do it?

 

as for kings prediction here we are 76 days till Christmas and they are cap in had to him already for fresh investment.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Can he return as Chairman is there not something in the rules about not being able to if he was a Director at a company that was involved in an insolvency event within the last 5 years?

 

the sfa appear to have cleared him.

[Frankie 8,136]

Can he return as Chairman is there not something in the rules about not being able to if he was a Director at a company that was involved in an insolvency event within the last 5 years?

 

It's at the SFA's discretion. It's unlikely they'd preclude King or Murray from serving on the board. In any event they'd just use a proxy though not sure if SFA could raise an action if they could prove the latter.