Dave King Interview

[the gunslinger 3,366]

i can't see any value in kidding on irvine wasn't the board attack dog.

 

mccoll, blin, king. all attacked all people we need.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

That's why i don't play Golf, £20mil is too steep for me.

[simplythebest 0]

McMurdo is an 'irrelevance' but a local bus company - part owned by a Rangers director whose family use the same PR guru as the club up until a few weeks ago - apparently sponsor (or did sponsor) his output via prominent adverts?

 

King didn't make the Irvine stuff up but unless he has evidence you won't get worked up about it?

 

You may not be playing games but you're certainly not willing to discuss important issues.

Am I not discussing it now? I was pointing out that Irvine has become something of a boogeyman figure.

 

Although I will say if the board were looking into PR against King it's not surprising, he did declare war on them after all before the more recent conciliatory tone.

[TheTinMan99 0]

I can't get too angry at McMurdo or Irvine. They only did what they were told/paid to do. The problem didn't leave when Irvine was paid off.

[bluebear54 0]

I can't get too angry at McMurdo or Irvine. They only did what they were told/paid to do. The problem didn't leave when Irvine was paid off.

 

It's not what they did, it's how they did it. IMO Irvine and McMurdo are in dire need of a moral compass. They are adrift in a sea of depravity.

[Mountain Bear 0]

I can't get too angry at McMurdo or Irvine. They only did what they were told/paid to do. The problem didn't leave when Irvine was paid off.

 

Irvine has only stopped working for the Club, he's still working for the same Director who was given proxy voting rights by Green, BPH et al (for reasons no-one has yet explained).

 

And according to Forlanssister in another thread, the Lawyer pursuing the liable claim against SOS just happened to be one of only four shareholders in Media House. Coincidence?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen the back of that odious little scrote yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anchorman 0]

Am I not discussing it now? I was pointing out that Irvine has become something of a boogeyman figure.

Although I will say if the board were looking into PR against King it's not surprising, he did declare war on them after all before the more recent conciliatory tone.

 

We are not talking football here as you know. It's cut-throat corporate conflict that is being played out in the public domain. If politics weren't played in the public domain 'spin doctors' wouldn't exist. Why would there be a need for them if your policies were all that counted?

The fact is both sides are using 'spin doctors' to some extent. King's are easy to work out - a couple of journos e.g. Keith Jackson, and Jim Whyte on Sky TV. King's role is fairly straightforward i.e. I'm the saviour coming over the hill if you need me (which I don't think is far off the mark).

The board's 'spin doctor' is not so easy to prove. Why not? Because they have to discredit people to stay in power. Theirs is a 'dirty' job - or as you put it - 'boogeyman'. They can't declare themselves so easily as they have slightly less morals than some.

So I will ask you two simple questions:

Do you honestly believe the board don't\didn't have a spin doctor\boogeyman?

If you agree they do\did, then who, if not Irvine (and\or McMurdo)?