chilledbear 16 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Peter Lawwell has described Dave King’s possible return to the Rangers board as "a very complex issue" and says he would only forgo his Scottish FA duties if he felt there was a direct conflict of interest. The South Africa-based businessman flew into Glasgow last week to hold talks after it was previously announced he was due to take up the position of chairman. King told STV he would not have travelled to Scotland to hold the discussions over taking up a role at Ibrox if he had not received an indication that his convictions would not impact on his appointment. He has since backtracked on that statement. After being convicted on 41 counts of contravening tax legislation in South Africa, King agreed to pay £44.75m in owed income tax and fines as an alternative to an 82-year jail term. That sentence, as well as his involvement in the demise of Rangers oldco, could potentially lead to the governing body refusing to deem King as a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a role in Scottish football. The Scottish FA’s Professional Game Board, on which Lawwell sits, must ratify any attempt by King to take up an official position at Rangers. Asked on the matter, Lawwell told STV: "Well it is a very complex issue and it is one for the PGB [Professional Game Board] initially, it may also be for the SFA board but it would be difficult for me to comment on SFA business here today without having fully consulted my colleagues." When quizzed if he had a conflict of interest given his position at Celtic, Lawwell said: "As an example in terms of the Scottish Cup final, where clearly we [Celtic] were in bidding for the final I would have to excuse myself from any discussion on that because it is a direct conflict. "Where there is an obvious and direct conflict of interest, you would excuse yourself from that debate. "If there’s any very obvious conflict then I have a duty to do that." http://t.co/4ifwQhWInA 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Night Owl Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Nice deflection. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 While I take no comfort in agreeing with anything that Lawell says, the King situation is a very complex issue and he is right not to say much until detailed information becomes available. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Not much he can say either way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DietofWorms Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 How is Dermot Desmonds tax situation Peter? Complex? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Night Owl Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 How is Dermot Desmonds tax situation Peter?Complex? Is Dermot in a spot of Tax bother DOW ? Never knew that, he hasn't gone and spent all his money on constructing that big black pyramid building in Dublin that he was on about a few years ago has he ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Pretty clear cut conflict of interest in my eyes. The CEO of one club should not have any say whatsoever on whether or not a potential investor in his age old rivals should be allowed to take up an executive position on it's board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It is all form over substance. King, if he is willing to stump up the readies, can control Rangers without ever holding an 'official position' and there is nothing the SFA can do about it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It is all form over substance. King, if he is willing to stump up the readies, can control Rangers without ever holding an 'official position' and there is nothing the SFA can do about it. Might be a double whammy here. All dependent on Dave King. 1) DK provided ongoing funding for Rangers, effectively "taking control." 2) DK takes the SFA to court big time, and allows all the skeletons to be admitted in evidence. In such a scenario I'd be more than happy to keep UEFA and the European media updated. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Pretty clear cut conflict of interest in my eyes. The CEO of one club should not have any say whatsoever on whether or not a potential investor in his age old rivals should be allowed to take up an executive position on it's board. Call me paranoid, but the only difference this season as opposed to the last one-and-a-half is that the puppet-player is now actually visible to the public. He and his sure don't lack gall. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.