Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

I suppose this is blogger’s equivalent of the Samurai tradition of Seppuku – their unique suicide rite. At journalism college one of my course tutor’s used to invariably preach about the successful narrator knowing, and writing to the very heart and soul of their audience. This article will do quite the opposite and some may find the content uncomfortable, however I feel it asks a question which needs to be asked.

 

The boardroom battle for control of our club has seen a thorough examination of the character and integrity (or alleged lack thereof) of the various candidates vying for control. It would be fair to say the Rangers support is well versed in the personal character strengths and weaknesses of the Murrays, the Easdales etc. The apparent weaknesses of the “other sides” candidates have been given maximum exposure during the ensuing debate, with the morality factor at times appearing as important as the size of the wallet they, or their backers, bring to our club. All is fair in love and war.

 

Waiting in the wings is a man many Rangers fans would view as our club’s “Messiah” – Dave King. Almost as important as his money appears to be his ability to unite the fragmented factions within our support for he appears to have the unanimous backing of all. Perhaps the eventual winner in our boardroom battle will determined by which side, if any, Dave King decides to ally with.

 

Such unanimous support for King has spared him the moral examination so many others have been subjected to in our boardroom struggle. With the exception of course of the Scottish Press. Let me make one thing clear – the Scottish Press have long surrendered the right to exercise moral judgement with regard to our club. They surrendered such a right long ago with their silence over 5 way agreements, their silence over unlawful transfer embargo’s imposed on our club and their desire to join with the haters in labelling us “cheats”and thus trampling over our right to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

 

This discussion is by invitation only, and those out with the Rangers support are not invited, cordially or otherwise. But it is nonetheless, a discussion which has to be had.

 

Judge Southwoods assessment of Dave King in his tax battle with the South African authorities was damning. I’m sure most of you have read it, but to spare you the false morality of the Scottish press it can be found here :

 

http://www.moneywebtax.co.za/moneywebtax/view/moneywebtax/en/page259?oid=56208&sn=Detail

 

Are we satisfied as a support that the coat bearing glib and shameless will be discarded should Dave King return to Ibrox in any capacity ?

 

Will an alleged disrespect for the truth be at odds with a support demanding transparency and clarity with regard to the governance of our club ?

 

Or are the characteristics described by Judge Southwood exactly what are needed at our club in a battle where our enemies are not playing by the rules ?

 

These are difficult questions but we will need to wrestle with them at some point. Failure to do so is just not an option.

Edited by D'Artagnan
Link correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Night Owl

Interesting question Art although I suspect many fans feel they are backing the better option in King. Maybe a better the devil you know in some eyes.

 

As for moral judgement, I'm not comfortable with such a thing falling into the lap of the fans... especially with our nature to be fickle.

 

ps, I'm loving the themed articles bloggers are publishing of late. McMurdo is a Medieval wizard/sage and you are a Samurai....I've completely forgot what Leggo was suppose to be but that tickled me to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree that we need to include morality in our considerations. I suppose it would be nice, but I don't find the thread of upright goodness running through our history to which others frequently allude; add to that our present desperation & I don't find myself caring how or where Dave King got his money from, as long as he's willing to lob tons of it at Rangers.

 

Also I think your tutor was talking balls. The chances are that the successful writer will be successful because he/she finds an empathetic audience who believe the writer is speaking to their soul, but they cannot set out to do that. It's a fortunate by-product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree that we need to include morality in our considerations. I suppose it would be nice, but I don't find the thread of upright goodness running through our history to which others frequently allude; add to that our present desperation & I don't find myself caring how or where Dave King got his money from, as long as he's willing to lob tons of it at Rangers.

 

Also I think your tutor was talking balls. The chances are that the successful writer will be successful because he/she finds an empathetic audience who believe the writer is speaking to their soul, but they cannot set out to do that. It's a fortunate by-product.

 

We perhaps dont need to include morality Andy in our considerations, however that has not stopped the warring factions from doing so. I just find it strange that some who wish to highlight the moral failings of opponents, are happy to ignore the moral failings of others. Perhaps having wads of cash is key to such exclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question Art although I suspect many fans feel they are backing the better option in King. Maybe a better the devil you know in some eyes.

 

As for moral judgement, I'm not comfortable with such a thing falling into the lap of the fans... especially with our nature to be fickle.

 

ps, I'm loving the themed articles bloggers are publishing of late. McMurdo is a Medieval wizard/sage and you are a Samurai....I've completely forgot what Leggo was suppose to be but that tickled me to.

 

The question is though Night Owl - what do we really know of King ? Yes he previously invested £20 million so he clearly has considerable affection for the club and a willingness to invest but what else ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with D'Art on this one. King seems to get a bye from many simply because he appears to be very rich. I don't think the club being in the hands of a billionaire is in its best interests. I seem to be in a minority on that though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We perhaps dont need to include morality Andy in our considerations' date=' however that has not stopped the warring factions from doing so. I just find it strange that some who wish to highlight the moral failings of opponents, are happy to ignore the moral failings of others. Perhaps having wads of cash is key to such exclusion.[/quote']

 

I don't really know the morality of the people who have been in situ for the last 18 months - 2 years, but I can see that they have mismanaged the finances of the club. I don't see King et al doing that, their morality again I don't know about, so that group is fine for me.

 

Morality doesn't come into it at all for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very reputable people and organisations have run-ins with the tax authorities. In some cases it is because they sailed a bit too close to the wind with regard to their interpretation of tax law and, in others, it is quite simply a 'shake-down' by the relevant authority. In very few cases is it as simple as a deliberate fraud. Had King been engaged in deliberate fraud then I rather doubt that SARS would have settled.

 

Thing is, tax law is highly complex and highly judgmental as we saw with regard to the EBTs. It simply isn't black or white and morality doesn't come into it (just ask Dermot Desmond). Tax payers take advantage of loopholes where they can to reduce their tax (anyone here got any 'tax-efficient' savings) while tax authorities regularly send in an inflated bill as a negotiating position (remember the EBTs).

 

Judges will always tend to side with the authorities so you have to look beyond their words at what actually happened. In this case, King settled with SARS and for a whole lot less than they were asking for. So the truth is probably in the middle. King was, no doubt, being a bit liberal in his interpretation of tax law while SARS were, no doubt, trying to shake him down for as much as they could get. And they settled much closer to where King was than where SARS were.

 

There seems to be a tendency to moralise over tax while, at the same time, doing all we can (legally of course) to reduce our own tax liability. A great many of us have tax 'efficient' ISAs, a great many of us have bought duty free booze and cigs and (probably) more than a few have paid tradesmen in cash to lighten HMRC's administrative burden.

 

So lets give Dave King a pass on the morality of his tax affairs and lets focus on the essential. Quite apart from having a ton of money, is he the right person to take Rangers forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.