Keith Jackson: It's time Rangers supremo Dave King revealed his Ibrox masterplan

[craig 5,199]

Why was Easdale having a criminal record unacceptable but King having a criminal record acceptable?

Under the SA Statute of Limitations the State can resurrect the 300 + criminal charges he faced within the next 20 years and lets not forget some of these charges were fraud, money laundering, racketeering and many more offences.

Think this guy will pass the SFA FAPP ?

Also can you tell me why did King want the CVA rejected in 2012 during administration?

 

Was Easdale's record unacceptable or was it his actions since he came into the Club ? Again, I see some revisionism here. I, for one, gave both Easdale's the benefit of the doubt but they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they hadn't a Scooby on how to run a football club.

 

SARS wont resurrect those charges because it isn't in their best interests to do so - it would bring their own employees and practices into question for the way they handled the case. They are as happy as King is that they settled. Red herring IMHO.

 

He may or may not pass the SFA FAPP - best wait to find out rather than our own deciding to open the kangaroo court just now, wouldn't you agree ? Besides, even if he isn't passed as FAP, there are plenty of ways around that. I still suspect that he will be granted FAP status but I know no more than you do, despite your protestations he shouldn't be passed FAP. But tell me, in the event he doesn't.... where then for Rangers Rab ? Because you seem to be happy enough if he doesn't get passed, where does that leave us ??

 

What is the 2012 CVA rejection to do with anything ? King had no bearing in it, so what is your point ?

[calscot 0]

you say we rid ourselves of a guy who did time.

DK was an extremely lucky man not to be doing time in SA for 40 odd tax convictions unless I'm mistaken. Or is that different ?

 

I doubt he was much closer to jail time than someone paying a parking fine really late. He was fined and the courts seemed happy with that and have let him continue to do business with no subsequent impairments. Didn't seem lucky to me. This is one of those tax things where it's all about interpretation and businesses sail close to the wind with it as they can make more millions doing so. I don't think there is a person alive who prepares their own tax return that hasn't tried it on a bit.

 

There is also the huge criticism of their tax officials - and we know well, that they don't always play fair.

 

I'm pretty sure what Easdale did was a lot more black and white. But in any case, if you want to be objective, fine versus jail time, then the latter loses. If you want me to draw a line, fine - I make it jail time. So yes, it's different, and pretty black and white. But it's still not the point, I've not been hounding Easdale about his conviction, and weirdly - neither have you.

 

Anyway I'll leave this debate now. It's clear people such as yourself are unable to see beyond this man & his promises(50million, 30million or whatever)but don't say you've not been warned...............

 

See again, I've explained my position to you and you're once again acting like you just didn't hear me or understand a word. What have I been warned about? Are you predicting that DK will be worse for the club than the prevous three years worth of boards? Your warning is like warning someone to stay in the middle of a busy road where they've been hit badly a few times, to avoid being run over in the cycle lane where they've never previously been harmed.

 

It's not as if DK is a complete unknown for us. DK and Ashley/Easdales both have business history with us, which were the most damaging? Which were the most self serving? Which were the most benevolent?

 

I don't think I'm the one unable so see.

 

I'll repeat one more time so you have no excuse. I don't think King is perfect and everyone has there own agenda which has some component of self-service, but there is almost no evidence to suggest he will be harmful to the club - maybe you should be warning HMRC instead, that's where he has form. The fact is that previous board WERE harmful to the club, and their removal is something to be thankful for. That's something I don't think you are able to see.

Edited April 14, 2015 by calscot

[trublusince1982 243]

That's fair enough but you seem to be asking about why it hasn't happened yet, when the answers are obvious - there are certain events which have to happen first and they will take time that DK has not much control over.

 

 

 

I don't have unyielding faith in him and although he has those convictions, to me it doesn't make him stand out any differently in the slightest from any very wealthy businessman. I believe that those as successful as him that haven't such convictions have just been luckier.

 

However, the thing I have a fair bit of confidence in is that he is the best solution for Rangers at this moment in time, and without him we were in a much, much darker place with the previous puppet masters. The situation seems to me like we've been rescued by a police unit from evil kidnappers, and then some are going on about some of their less than perfect service records...

 

 

 

There really isn't much of a bigger picture beyond the carnage of those previously in charge of the club. We really didn't have any other options at this time. Even the other candidates that have stepped in and supported King, and those on the sidelines that possibly had the power to do something but didn't - have backed him verbally.

 

Our choice was DK or Ashley; DK wins by a million light years. And we've also rid ourselves from a guy who actually did time.

 

But at the moment it's like the dice are in the middle of rolling and you're repeatedly asking why they haven't stopped and shown a certain number combination. The current answer has nothing to do with the outcome but instead having to explain Newton mechanics of collisions of two moving bodies in a gravitational field. Or in plain English: the dice are still rolling and we can't know the answer until they stop.

 

As DB says, DK has had criticism on here about his timing - although for me we have to be careful about that as he is much more adept at this than us. It could be like an armchair viewer (a long time ago) criticising Steve Ovette for staying in third place for a long time before making his move - or maybe about the timing of the likes of Cavendish for something more current.

 

Although business is more like a poker game, and it's folly to tell a top player how to play his cards, even if he loses a big pot.

 

Playing the game to win is not that easy. I've just experienced buying a used car and that's hard enough. Now I'm beating myself up as to whether getting £500 off the (reduced) sticker price is ok or pretty useless. I found that very stressful, but the stakes here for DK have been much higher, as has been the personal investment of time and effort.

 

So DK might not be the best guy in the world to take us on, but he's definitely the best guy in the world we have right now. But even if you disagree, criticising and questioning him for not doing things before it's even possible still seems a bit of a waste of time.

can you explain what the obvious reasons for holding up invertment are?

the ones in the media are nonsense and hold no water

[craig 5,199]

can you explain what the obvious reasons for holding up invertment are?

the ones in the media are nonsense and hold no water

 

How can he invest ? By that I mean how can he invest money into the CLUB right now ? He can buy shares in the open market but that doesn't go to the Club - so how can he actually invest right now ?

 

He can loan the Club money, sure. But investing is a very different proposition.

 

Unless I'm mistaken they would need to have a share issue to allow anyone to invest equity in the Club. This would in all probability mean a shareholder vote on a rights issue so as to allow current shareholders to not see dilution in their shareholding. Which also then means King would only be allowed to invest up to his current shareholding in the Club which is circa 15% I think, unless other shareholders don't take up their rights and he can then purchase the remaining unallocated shares.

 

So, how does he invest again ?

Edited April 14, 2015 by craig

[calscot 0]

What Craig said (although he says it with a lot more clout than me).

Edited April 14, 2015 by calscot

[Hildy 0]

Why do people object to one man having convictions while another man's are mostly ignored?

 

Hypocrisy is probably one reason, but there's a realism afoot too. If we were so moral would we rid the club of every high-ranking employee with a drink-driving conviction? We would but we don't.

 

King made his fortune in South Africa and it may have been his expectation that the state would be lax when it came to the rich and powerful with regard to tax, but times changed and he was left with a large bill.

 

Few Rangers fans are troubled by a rich club owner trying to keep his taxes low. What rich man does not minimise his tax spend?

 

I'm not a King fan but my reservations are more about how he will run the club than some historic tax offences.

[calscot 0]

Why do people object to one man having convictions while another man's are mostly ignored?

 

I don't think this is happening at all and has already been debunked.

 

Hypocrisy is probably one reason, but there's a realism afoot too. If we were so moral would we rid the club of every high-ranking employee with a drink-driving conviction? We would but we don't.

 

As has been said before, there always needs to be a line. Jail time makes an easy line and an obvious difference. You can eventually be jailed from not paying a parking fine.

 

Who would you rather get lift from, a guy who disputed some speeding tickets, won a bit, lost a bit, and had to pay some fines, or a guy who got done for drunk driving and went to jail?

 

King made his fortune in South Africa and it may have been his expectation that the state would be lax when it came to the rich and powerful with regard to tax, but times changed and he was left with a large bill.

 

Few Rangers fans are troubled by a rich club owner trying to keep his taxes low. What rich man does not minimise his tax spend?

 

What ordinary self-employed person doesn't do the same?

 

I'm not a King fan but my reservations are more about how he will run the club than some historic tax offences.

 

The biggest difference that people are missing is that DK is by all appearances a friend of Rangers and has put money into the club in the past without return, while Easdale is not and is not considered a trustworthy person.

 

Now simple question, if you have a mate that once helped you out by giving you a load of money for your company he didn't get back - but he was fined for being creative with his taxes and allowed to continue to run businesses without prejudice, so do you no longer trust him not to con out of money and run your company in a legit manner? I think the answer is yes. In fact, considering our recent spats with what has appeared to be a very dirty HMRC, he sounds like a fantastic asset.

 

However, take someone who is not your mate, who has already repeatedly treated you with contempt, has a dark reputation for not being very straight (that people are too afraid to talk about), has been in jail for fraud, has already conned you out of money for the gain of his friends which will take years to unravel, has threatened to sue you for pretty much nothing many times so you have to watch what you say and do - so do you trust him with continuing to run your company? I think the answer is no way in Hell.

 

Why is that so hard to understand? I really don't understand how anyone can think the two are remotely similar.

 

Some people need to look up the difference between the words, "benevolence" and "malevolence". They sound similar but are very different, just like DK and SE.

Edited April 15, 2015 by calscot

[calscot 0]

I feel the need to labour the point, so based on DK's convictions and who benefited from his transgressions and who suffered:

 

Who in South Africa should be more wary about the future behaviour of DK - SARS or the company he's running?

 

So who should be more wary in the UK - HMRC or the company he's running?

[ian1964 10,431]

With the possibility of us not getting promoted,even if we do!,there is a huge rebuilding to be done,and pretty quick regardless of what division we are playing in next season.The whole squad needs to be rebuilt.I think the season ticket sales will be bought if we get promoted,but I'm not so sure how many will buy a ST if we don't get promoted?,either way a huge task faces the new board.