The Seppuku of an internet blogger

[The Real PapaBear 0]

At some point morality does come into it - I suspect even for you, andy - the only question is at which point do we, as a support, draw the moral line.

Dave King seems to have an issue with the SARS and his relationship with them is entirely adversarial to the point where he is happy to lie and deceive them. At the same time, other sources claim that SARS is corrupt to the core. Personally, I don't know enough about either King or SARS to say which is more trustworthy, but as far as I am aware, his relationship with the SARS is the only part of his operation about which questions of dubious morality and legality have been raised. That being the case, I have no qualms about him taking over. It's not like he is Nestlé or Monsanto.

[D'Artagnan 173]

At some point morality does come into it - I suspect even for you, andy - the only question is at which point do we, as a support, draw the moral line.

Dave King seems to have an issue with the SARS and his relationship with them is entirely adversarial to the point where he is happy to lie and deceive them. At the same time, other sources claim that SARS is corrupt to the core. Personally, I don't know enough about either King or SARS to say which is more trustworthy, but as far as I am aware, his relationship with the SARS is the only part of his operation about which questions of dubious morality and legality have been raised. That being the case, I have no qualms about him taking over. It's not like he is Nestlé or Monsanto.

 

I think that about sums it up for me RPB - so long as the glib & shameless coat is hung on a peg outside Ibrox.

[bossy 0]

At some point morality does come into it - I suspect even for you, andy - the only question is at which point do we, as a support, draw the moral line.

Dave King seems to have an issue with the SARS and his relationship with them is entirely adversarial to the point where he is happy to lie and deceive them. At the same time, other sources claim that SARS is corrupt to the core. Personally, I don't know enough about either King or SARS to say which is more trustworthy, but as far as I am aware, his relationship with the SARS is the only part of his operation about which questions of dubious morality and legality have been raised. That being the case, I have no qualms about him taking over. It's not like he is Nestlé or Monsanto.

 

Ones view of 'morality' is very different when you are on the receiving end of a 'shake-down'.

[D'Artagnan 173]

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?

 

I appreciate what you are saying bossy. But is the Dave King who perhaps will one day run our club going to do so with a mentality and attitude similar to the one he displayed with SARS ?

[bossy 0]

I appreciate what you are saying bossy. But is the Dave King who perhaps will one day run our club going to do so with a mentality and attitude similar to the one he displayed with SARS ?

 

If it means he will be tough as nails and utterly ruthless towards the opposition then I hope so. And his attitude to SARS was 100% right. If he had not done that then they would have rolled him for a lot more money.

 

What we need is 1) someone with a genuine passion for Rangers, 2) someone who is a highly talented businessman and 3) someone who is utterly ruthless and street smart.

 

I have my own reservations with regard to King. But they are nothing to do with the morality of his tax affairs. My concern is that he is another David Murray.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I have my own reservations with regard to King. But they are nothing to do with the morality of his tax affairs. My concern is that he is another David Murray.

 

Any particular reason for that reservation or just a gut feeling?

[bossy 0]

Any particular reason for that reservation or just a gut feeling?

 

First, he was quite happy to sit on David Murray's board for years while we were slowly going down the tubes.

 

Second, he has always had a somewhat dismissive perspective towards the supporters being engaged in the club. I fear he sees supporters as customers the same way Murray did.

 

Third, he has made it clear that he wants control and does not want to share control. That puts the club at risk of something going wrong elsewhere in his business dealings as happened with Murray.

 

Fourth, and just based on some of the stuff he has said, he clearly has an ego and prefers to keep as much info as possible close to his chest. I think the support will be kept very much in the dark in a Dave King regime.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

First, he was quite happy to sit on David Murray's board for years while we were slowly going down the tubes.

 

Second, he has always had a somewhat dismissive perspective towards the supporters being engaged in the club. I fear he sees supporters as customers the same way Murray did.

 

Third, he has made it clear that he wants control and does not want to share control. That puts the club at risk of something going wrong elsewhere in his business dealings as happened with Murray.

 

Fourth, and just based on some of the stuff he has said, he clearly has an ego and prefers to keep as much info as possible close to his chest. I think the support will be kept very much in the dark in a Dave King regime.

 

I think you're maybe being a tad harsh on the first point. Board members of a board in which the chairman is also the owner seldom, if ever, have a complete picture of the company - unless that chairman choses to share it. So I'm willing to cut anybody who was on a Murray board some slack.

 

Your points 2, 3 and 4, however, do have the ring of truth - particularly the third. The idea of the Alpha male, super rich, leader with a love for the club taking control and propelling us back into the Champions League definitely has its attractions - but, as you say, it does make us vulnerable, too.

[chilledbear 16]

The worry for me with King is who comes after him, are we up for sale again?

 

He's no spring chicken.

[D'Artagnan 173]

The worry for me with King is who comes after him, are we up for sale again?

 

He's no spring chicken.

 

And that CB is it in a nutshell. Would you like a coconut or a goldfish ?