New DK Info from FF

[Zappa 0]

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?

 

Not only are you overreacting with this victim card nonsense, but you're being hypocritical about my questions and motives.

 

It seems as though it's absolutely fine for you yourself to not only question the character of a man like Dave King here on a public Rangers forum, but repeatedly call him a criminal and state repeatedly with virtually no uncertainty that you're sure he would not pass the SFA's "fit and proper" test.

 

Now, given that the subjects of King, his SA tax cases, his character and your belief about him not being fit and proper are things you've written extensively about here on Gersnet, I think that quizzing you about whether or not you've spoken to anyone at the SFA or elsewhere about it is a completely fair thing to do because you have a well documented habit of making phone calls, emailing or texting your various contacts to get direct answers to specific questions and voice your concerns on certain matters.

 

You've denied having contacted anyone about King, so that's fair enough and I'll take your word for it.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You've denied having contacted anyone about King, so that's fair enough and I'll take your word for it.

 

It's good of you to take my word for it, Zappa, but your use of the word "denied" implies that you are making an allegation against me and since you have not produced any evidence, nor is there any evidence to produce because the allegation is entirely without foundation, I would be grateful if you would withdraw the allegation.

 

This forum is not a criminal court and I am not in the dock.

 

As to Mr King I am sure you are familiar with with Mr Justice Smallwood's comments which are far more authoritative and knowledgeable than anything I can say.

[Hildy 0]

Given everything that has happened to us, it's fair enough to look at prospective owners in case there is anything that should concern us, but . . .

 

The idea that all successful business types are paragons of virtue is extremely far-fetched. Along the way, they will usually have pulled a stroke or two; taken short cuts, made beneficial adjustments, paid late, minimised tax bills and been creative with accounting and generous with expenses.

 

Just look at our elected representatives: self-interest can make honest men blur the lines between what is right and what is sometimes essential.

 

I don't want another business type owning Rangers, but if it turns out that another one is about to, I'm not going to be so naive to believe that his or her background will have been devoid of a little sinfulness.

 

What is it that our church leaders like to tell us?

 

We're all sinners.

 

I don't think anyone can reasonably find fault in that.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Hildy

[Zappa 0]

your use of the word "denied" implies that you are making an allegation against me

 

I asked you questions which you had no obligation whatsoever to answer, but you chose to do so. I've made no direct allegations against you despite you suggesting that I have.

 

and since you have not produced any evidence, nor is there any evidence to produce because the allegation is entirely without foundation, I would be grateful if you would withdraw the allegation.

 

Why would I need to produce evidence when I haven't made any allegation/s? This is yet another example of complete and utter hypocrisy from you. It was only just last week that you again had to reign in your comments about Dave King because you were incessantly repeating that he isn't a shareholder in a manner where you were stating it as a fact when in actual fact you later admitted that you didn't have a clue whether he's a shareholder or not.

 

The forum rules ask everyone to refrain from unsubstantiated allegations about any subject, so you should maybe try to be more careful what you say about Dave King. Gersnet appears regularly in Google searches and this forum won't be held responsible for anyone - yourself included - spreading misinformation about Dave King or anyone else.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I asked you questions which you had no obligation whatsoever to answer, but you chose to do so. I've made no direct allegations against you despite you suggesting that I have.

 

 

 

Why would I need to produce evidence when I haven't made any allegation/s? This is yet another example of complete and utter hypocrisy from you. It was only just last week that you again had to reign in your comments about Dave King because you were incessantly repeating that he isn't a shareholder in a manner where you were stating it as a fact when in actual fact you later admitted that you didn't have a clue whether he's a shareholder or not.

 

The forum rules ask everyone to refrain from unsubstantiated allegations about any subject, so you should maybe try to be more careful what you say about Dave King. Gersnet appears regularly in Google searches and this forum won't be held responsible for anyone - yourself included - spreading misinformation about Dave King or anyone else.

 

I take it you do not disagree with Mr Justice Smallwood.

 

Why don't you just come out and say you would prefer me not to post on here at all.

[Frankie 8,150]

Relax gentlemen please...

[pete 2,499]

I take it you do not disagree with Mr Justice Smallwood.

 

Why don't you just come out and say you would prefer me not to post on here at all.

 

Probably because it is not true, your opinion is as welcome as everybody's on here. Not everybody will agree with it but hey not even the wife agrees with me. As Frankie said time for you guy's to relax and smell the roses.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Probably because it is not true, your opinion is as welcome as everybody's on here. Not everybody will agree with it but hey not even the wife agrees with me. As Frankie said time for you guy's to relax and smell the roses.

 

It would be helpful if all your moderators adopted the same diplomatic approach as you and Frankie, not agreeing is everyone's right and privilege but constantly referring to posts you disagree with as "nonsense " , "ludicrous" etc is confrontational.

[Frankie 8,150]

We're all diplomatic enough but, like every other user, admin can get passionate on some issues on occasion as well.

 

Let's all take a deep breath for the moment and reconvene when the review is published. Then we'll all be standing by our handbags.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

We're all diplomatic enough but, like every other user, admin can get passionate on some issues on occasion as well.

 

Let's all take a deep breath for the moment and reconvene when the review is published. Then we'll all be standing by our handbags.

 

I take exception to the Handbag quote, suggesting we are all cross dressers is just incorrect. However if you had said we'll be jumping up and down in our Jimmy Choo slingbacks (the chenille ones with the diamante round the peep toes) i could agree.