BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 The point being, if King owns the club, but has no formal involvement in its running, the SFA can do SFA about it. If Laxey Partners made comment about the quality of refereeing for example, what could the SFA do? A shareholder, majority or otherwise, has nothing to do with the SFA. However, I can't see DK not taking a board position if he becomes owner/majority shareholder.... I agree about "comments about the quality of refereeing for example"; I beg to differ on the other in respect of a controlling director. I can't see DK not taking a board position if he becomes owner/majority shareholder. Therein lies his problem. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Is there really a problem? Many premiership clubs in England have people who are owners and/or majority shareholders who don't participate in board meetings but whose influence is unmistakeable. Quite a few live outside of the UK. If the SFA etc. chose to impose restrictions on DK, it would be a futile gesture. If DK decided to make a significant investment, he is unlikely to have reached such a decision, without considering his options and his ability to ensure that his wishes are implemented and adhered to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Is there really a problem? Many premiership clubs in England have people who are owners and/or majority shareholders who don't participate in board meetings but whose influence is unmistakeable. Quite a few live outside of the UK. If the SFA etc. chose to impose restrictions on DK, it would be a futile gesture. If DK decided to make a significant investment, he is unlikely to have reached such a decision, without considering his options and his ability to ensure that his wishes are implemented and adhered to. Romanov was one. Not a great example but one all the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whosthedado 1,489 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 We've had so many false dawns in recent times. Actions speak louder than words. Don't let us down Dave. Sums up the whole thread early doors for me. Time to put up or shut up DK 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Those who presently control the club do so without sitting on the board as did David Murray for long enough. King could quite easily do likewise if he needed to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Those who presently control the club do so without sitting on the board as did David Murray for long enough. King could quite easily do likewise if he needed to. Yeah, don't follow the significance of sitting on the board. Are we to pretend that Romanov did not have complete control of Hearts? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 If the SPFL replace the SFA as the main governing body (as reported in todays Mail it's all immaterial, Liewell and CO will make new rules to ensure King does not become a director. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 (1) & (2) None. So you're stating categorically that you've never contacted anyone at the SFA or anywhere else about whether Dave King would be deemed 'fit and proper' to be involved with Rangers? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 So you're stating categorically that you've never contacted anyone at the SFA or anywhere else about whether Dave King would be deemed 'fit and proper' to be involved with Rangers? I am not quite sure which part of "none" it was that you didn't understand and I also deeply resent the inference in you repeating the same question twice effectively suggesting that I was lying in my first answer. But since you have chosen to repeat the question on a public forum, I'll repeat the answer: I have never never contacted anyone at the SFA or anywhere else about whether Dave King would be deemed 'fit and proper' to be involved with Rangers. If you have evidence to the contrary I suggest you publish it now or apologise just as publicly as you have posed the question. You might also care to remember that not that long ago you had to publicly apologise for suggesting that I had leaked a story about Mark Dingwall to the press; when the truth was that I knew nothing about it. Why do you persist in these unfounded allegations about me? What is it you are trying to achieve? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Sums up the whole thread early doors for me. Time to put up or shut up DK Quite a lot of fans are understandably getting tired of all the false dawns and want to see King doing more than just posture and stage a public PR war against the current incumbents. Having said that, I'm still not at the stage of thinking he should "put up or shut up", but do appreciate why other folk are at that stage. It's such a complex situation, but I hope King is willing to compromise slightly and buy a significant shareholding. Even if he had to pay between 50p & 70p a share to get about 10% of the Club for between £5m & £7m it would be a fantastic starting point and one which would get him widespread support from our fans as well as silence most of his critics in one single move. 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.