Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry mate but you have no idea what you are talking about on the subject of King judging by your statements. I don't know whether you are too young or whether you are just very ignorant about the man and his background\history. King was lauded at the time and rightly so, and he got nothing in return, nor did he look for anything. Full stop! There is no alternative story despite vain attempts by the likes of yourself. Why don't you give it and us a rest?

You just make a fool of yourself calling him 'not that wealthy'. I don't really want to drum up the whole King debate (RAB - is that ok?) but certain people are only too happy to cite the judge in the SARS case who called him a liar\cheat etc, but they conveniently forget that he also called King "probably the richest man in South Africa", which is going some. Kings wealth was never in doubt (ask Gary Player) until now for some utterly bizarre reason.

It's funny how his contribution is so nonchalantly dismissed yet said poster bends over backwards to defend those who bring us destruction.

 

PS - Also amusing how King's past seems such an issue for some yet they are prepared to embrace the convicted fraudster SE who doesn't have a pot to piss in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry mate but you have no idea what you are talking about on the subject of King judging by your statements. I don't know whether you are too young or whether you are just very ignorant about the man and his background\history. King was lauded at the time and rightly so, and he got nothing in return, nor did he look for anything. Full stop! There is no alternative story despite vain attempts by the likes of yourself. Why don't you give it and us a rest?

You just make a fool of yourself calling him 'not that wealthy'. I don't really want to drum up the whole King debate (RAB - is that ok?) but certain people are only too happy to cite the judge in the SARS case who called him a liar\cheat etc, but they conveniently forget that he also called King "probably the richest man in South Africa", which is going some. Kings wealth was never in doubt (ask Gary Player) until now for some utterly bizarre reason.

 

I'll leave that reply without comment, much like SBS's easily anticipated blather untowards me afterwards. Instead I'll give you the sentence that caused you so much chagrin in the way it was actually meant to be understood and beg your pardon for the misshap:

 

Matter of fact, I don't care if King got his money back or not. It would be interesting to know what if anything he expected "in return". People might see it differently, but if he invested his money to see us prosper and become better back then, he sure got that in return. Much like any other, not as wealthy a supporter like himself. If he looked for more or even a (full) return, well, he's not that avid a supporter in this Bear's eyes.

 

One thing though. I much like you do NOT know what King expected in return, for that's something only King can answer. I've made it quite clear before for how long I support my team and I think it is fair to say that I know quite a bit about King as well, not least since we've debated him for months if not years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the thread headline is only hearsay, I'll put my tuppence worth in and say Rangers will be a lot stronger with Ashley pulling the strings. If it's 50M or loans I don't care, all I'm bothered about is seeing us playing in europe again and winning some and losing some against the beasts from the east, don't matter one shot. I'll be there for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing though. I much like you do NOT know what King expected in return, (1) for that's something only King can answer. I've made it quite clear before for how long I support my team and I think it is fair to say that (2) I know quite a bit about King as well, not least since we've debated him for months if not years.

 

Despite the articulate response it still amounts to the same drivel about King -

(1) It's NOT something ONLY King can answer, that's where you are wrong (why am I debating this non story again FFS :facepalm:). When King said to SDM publicly that he was taking him to court to get his money back SDM could EASILY have came back with "you got X back". He didn't because King didn't get a dime back.

 

(2) This kills the debate for me and explains a helluva lot - "I know quite a bit about King as well, not least since we've debated him for months if not years.". Your knowledge of King is based on internet\social media drivel and gossip? No wonder you stand where you stand. As I said in an earlier post - I too have gained a lot of knowledge over the years from the internet\forums etc - like I never knew it was Elvis that shot Kennedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite the articulate response it still amounts to the same drivel about King -

(1) It's NOT something ONLY King can answer, that's where you are wrong (why am I debating this non story again FFS :facepalm:). When King said to SDM publicly that he was taking him to court to get his money back SDM could EASILY have came back with "you got X back". He didn't because King didn't get a dime back.

 

Matter of fact, I don't care if King got his money back or not. ... was clear enough. Still, nec scire fas est omnia is what the Romans would have remarked and to "kill that debate" you simply could have said this earlier or linked it. As with many things King, not much has been heard since.

 

(2) This kills the debate for me and explains a helluva lot - "I know quite a bit about King as well, not least since we've debated him for months if not years.". Your knowledge of King is based on internet\social media drivel and gossip? No wonder you stand where you stand. As I said in an earlier post - I too have gained a lot of knowledge over the years from the internet\forums etc - like I never knew it was Elvis that shot Kennedy.

 

Are you sure you knew yourself what you were trying to say here?

 

In any case, how about giving people's intelligence enough respect and accept that they are able to discern fact from fiction, drivel, and gossip? Not least with a topic that has been covered by enough credible sources and people.

 

On the same note, there is no reason to take such a King defender's stance. It is clear for anyone that he sure isn't the enemy and will be welcomed with open arms - at least compared to the other arties involved. Me included.That said, I don't shed any more tears about his "lost 20m" than over things other investors or indeed loyal ST buyers et al over the years lost, no matter how often this 20m argument is being brought up. As far as I am concerned - and as I intimated above - he invested his money for the better of Rangers, be it playing staff, infrastructure or whatever, much like any ST money et al was invested. What he like we got in return stands in the trophy room and is edged in the history books and our hearts. If that is not what his investment was for, what did he expect in return then? Securities? A payback clause? A question only King or those dealing with him back then can answer. I know that business people will come in and say that his "investment" was different to ST money et al. Maybe so. IMHO, he had the means to "invest" more than your average punter who handed down ST money each season and bought the odd share. I thanked him for that, like we all did. Much like these punters wont get their ST money "investment" back, he should IMHO not try to get his "investment" back either ... or make it actually look like a "loss".

Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Still, nec scire fas est omnia is what the Romans would have remarked.

 

(2) Are you sure you knew yourself what you were trying to say here?

 

(3) In any case, how about giving people's intelligence enough respect and accept that they are able to discern fact from fiction, drivel, and gossip?

 

(1) "nec scire fas est omnia" :rolleyes: - Yawn. And your point is caller?

(2) Absolutely clear

(3) You clearly aren't able to discern because you are still trying to keep a clear untruth going as debatable. End of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) "nec scire fas est omnia" :rolleyes: - Yawn. And your point is caller?

(2) Absolutely clear

(3) You clearly aren't able to discern because you are still trying to keep a clear untruth going as debatable. End of.

 

1) Make your "knowledge" clear by "facts" which might be not as clear to others.

2) Doesn't come over like that.

3) But you are? Cool. I take it you were going on about the undebatable 20m still? IMHO these are very much debatable and only those you don't see any blemish on King don't want to.

 

Anyway, the sun is shining and a game is coming up. Enjoy your weekend!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Make your "knowledge" clear by "facts" which might be not as clear to others.

2) Doesn't come over like that.

3) But you are? Cool. I take it you were going on about the undebatable 20m still? IMHO these are very much debatable and only those you don't see any blemish on King don't want to.

 

Anyway, the sun is shining and a game is coming up. Enjoy your weekend!

 

(1) Make your points clear - not in Latin - thank you

(2) To you

(3) It's not debatable - but you will keep trying no doubt (why don't you and Rab just PM each other? In Latin maybe? :P).

 

Enjoy your weekend too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Make your points clear - not in Latin - thank you

(2) To you

(3) It's not debatable - but you will keep trying no doubt (why don't you and Rab just PM each other? In Latin maybe? :P).

 

Enjoy your weekend too.

 

1) I actually did in that very sentence.

2) well, well

3) I see that you don't want to debate what I asked in post #85, which is very much open to debate up until someone tells us. Frank statement like your don't shed any light on the matter whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.