Share Issue a Temporary Fix - Richard Wilson

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I was beginning to waver there for a second, but you blew by talking mince about King's wealth. How did he pay off the SARS then, by Provy cheque?

 

Exactly he's just dropped 50 odd million at the drop of a hat no problems. then made 70 the following day.

 

The notion he doesn't have the wealth is daft.

[Hildy 0]

It's ok for the manager, why not the board too?

 

What King says and what he does are completely different. it's time we forgot about him.

 

I'm interested in why someone is dismissing King as having less wealth than is generally believed.

 

Do they know something that the rest of us don't or is it just a hunch?

 

I can understand the cynicism that exists within us because we have plenty of experience of people being economical with the truth, but when King said in March this year . . .

 

"I have lost £20m in Rangers already and I’m happy to lose another £30m because I love the team. I don’t want to be arrogant but it might be easier for me to lose £30m than it is for some fans to afford season tickets" . . .

 

I want to know why people are prepared to state openly on a public forum that they don't believe this to be true. If they have facts which cast doubt on King's statement, then let them share them, but if they know no more than the rest of us and are merely speculating, they should make their position clear.

[Super Cooper 0]

I'm interested in why someone is dismissing King as having less wealth than is generally believed.

 

Do they know something that the rest of us don't or is it just a hunch?

 

I can understand the cynicism that exists within us because we have plenty of experience of people being economical with the truth, but when King said in March this year . . .

 

"I have lost £20m in Rangers already and I’m happy to lose another £30m because I love the team. I don’t want to be arrogant but it might be easier for me to lose £30m than it is for some fans to afford season tickets" . . .

 

I want to know why people are prepared to state openly on a public forum that they don't believe this to be true. If they have facts which cast doubt on King's statement, then let them share them, but if they know no more than the rest of us and are merely speculating, they should make their position clear.

 

It's probably just an opinion, a guess, albeit a pessimistic one. The other side of the exact same coin as those who think he has this and that and can do this and that.

 

I've lost interest in him. I now see him as a time wasting muckraker. That's my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

I was beginning to waver there for a second, but you blew by talking mince about King's wealth. How did he pay off the SARS then, by Provy cheque?

Try not to rise to it mate.

He is just another stirrer from you know where,

[Hildy 0]

It's probably just an opinion, a guess, albeit a pessimistic one. The other side of the exact same coin as those who think he has this and that and can do this and that.

 

I've lost interest in him. I now see him as a time wasting muckraker. That's my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He said this:

 

"I do not believe King has any intention of investing because he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have."

 

This bit - "he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have" - looks much more like a statement of fact than an opinion.

 

I want to know why anyone would say this. Is it true? If it is, how will it impact on Rangers? If it's not true, then why say it?

 

It is his opinion that King has no intention of investing, which is fine, but stating that he does not have the wealth that he is supposed to have is a naive thing to put on a public forum unless it can be properly backed up.

[Super Cooper 0]

I disagree. People make statements about everything all the time, it's upto the reader to interpret it how they wish. This is a fans forum to discuss each other's opinions.

 

The only genuine statements are official quotes etc. I certainly didn't think Rab was saying it as a statement of fact, I read it as his opinion.

 

We had people calling club employees liars earlier on without backing it up, no one asked them for proof of fact.

 

I say Ally McCoist is useless, it's a statement yes but it's only my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[der Berliner 3,247]

For some it seems all fair and square to announce that the board is there to serve the board first and foremost, not Rangers. That is the truth and we all know it, no ifs and buts.

 

If you question King's ability to raise the money he said he was willing to invest, you get ridiculed by essentially the same folk.

 

We all were told that McColl was one of the big guns when it came to Scottish wealth, yet, as we found out closer to the takeover, he hasn't got as much money in his purse as expected, nor could generate enough "cash" because of "other business commitments". I'm not sure how many of us actually know how much wealth King has handy these days. How much money he can make available if he wanted to. He sure paid of SARS ... and again, no-one knows the size of the dent it put into his ready-cash purse. I seem to remember that he went on about his children's inheritance that he would blew to save us ... and that the children said: go for it! Back then I wondered what he's on about, when he speaks about - essentially - his crown jewels here? When we all believed he was the richest guy in the RSA?

 

The board-haters may not like this, but as much as people ask questions about our current leaders, people should be allowed to ask questions or raise concerns about King and Co.. For that pendulum does swing both ways.

[Hildy 0]

For some it seems all fair and square to announce that the board is there to serve the board first and foremost, not Rangers. That is the truth and we all know it, no ifs and buts.

 

If you question King's ability to raise the money he said he was willing to invest, you get ridiculed by essentially the same folk.

 

We all were told that McColl was one of the big guns when it came to Scottish wealth, yet, as we found out closer to the takeover, he hasn't got as much money in his purse as expected, nor could generate enough "cash" because of "other business commitments". I'm not sure how many of us actually know how much wealth King has handy these days. How much money he can make available if he wanted to. He sure paid of SARS ... and again, no-one knows the size of the dent it put into his ready-cash purse. I seem to remember that he went on about his children's inheritance that he would blew to save us ... and that the children said: go for it! Back then I wondered what he's on about, when he speaks about - essentially - his crown jewels here? When we all believed he was the richest guy in the RSA?

 

The board-haters may not like this, but as much as people ask questions about our current leaders, people should be allowed to ask questions or raise concerns about King and Co.. For that pendulum does swing both ways.

 

 

I'm entirely in favour of questions being asked of King, but when someone says that "he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have", they have wandered into dangerous territory.

 

The person who made this statement should either back it up or retract it.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[der Berliner 3,247]

I'm entirely in favour of questions being asked of King, but when someone says that "he does not have the wealth he is alleged to have", they have wandered into dangerous territory.

 

The person who made this statement should either back it up or retract it.

 

And why's that? If said poster says what he thinks about King's wealth it is no insult or something. I doubt that anyone on here can justify any claims that King is the RSA's richest guy either.

It's not that the current board's detractors back all their opinions up with fact, not to mention the puppet master stuff. What you get is opinions based more often than not on assumption and conjecture ... and fair enough, as it also goes both ways.

[Hildy 0]

And why's that? If said poster says what he thinks about King's wealth it is no insult or something. I doubt that anyone on here can justify any claims that King is the RSA's richest guy either.

It's not that the current board's detractors back all their opinions up with fact, not to mention the puppet master stuff. What you get is opinions based more often than not on assumption and conjecture ... and fair enough, as it also goes both ways.

 

If I say that Rangers are going out of business on Friday, people will want to know why I am saying it. If I tell them it's just an opinion, I will be deservedly ridiculed.

 

If I say that King's wealth is not what it is alleged to be, I will be challenged on that too, and again, if it's another clumsy expression of opinion, I will be ridiculed.

 

A poster has made a statement that he either can't or won't back up. I can assure you, I'm no defender of King, but when I see it stated clearly that his wealth is not what it is alleged to be, I want to know the reason why.

 

And I'm not getting an answer.