Confirmed! Dave King passed as 'fit and proper' by SFA

[der Berliner 3,282]

Southwood said the court had seen King testify for four days and “are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is support by documents and other objective evidence”.

 

“It was remarkable that King showed no sign of embarrassment or any emotion when he conceded that he had lied to the (Sars) commissioner in a number of his income tax returns. In our assessment, he is a glib and shameless liar.”

 

Wonder how fit and proper and trustworthy this Mr. Southwood is or was? Just saying. I've seen so many politicians et al saying one thing, thinking something entirely different and doing something altogether different afterwards.

 

Can't actually follow much of the debate above any longer, as it has been done to death before -> . Same arguments, same quotes. King is here now, the doubters will remain as they always have, it is his job to prove them wrong. At least when it comes to his job at Ibrox.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

That's nonsense. There were questions about Whyte being fit and proper which the SFA pursued but allowed themselves to be fobbed off with spurious arguments and delays by his lawyers until it was too late.

 

Oh aye. Worked a treat.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

This guy (King) lasted for 13 years in such a fight. The initial payment was far, far less but because it dragged on for so long ... it got bigger and bigger. Last articles I read (googled Dave King Business SA) indicated that because SARS was now under investigation itself for illegal means of collecting information, he(King) could have fought longer and been cleared of all charges. However, he had already more than doubled or tripled what he paid with his new company and wanted to be able to put this stage behind him. Sort of shows a different type of personality than is currently being described by our press.

 

Picked this up on another forum, two articles but basically the same thrust. SARS was being run inappropriately, and "King was targeted for being a rich white man in the new SA". (ok the last bit is my interpretation)

 

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/03/24/last-word-cocky-npa-left-red-faced-by-dave-king

 

http://thegremlin.co.za/plettenberg-bay-news/wordpress/2013/03/25/cocky-npa-left-red-faced-by-dave-king/

Edited May 20, 2015 by aweebluesoandso

[Anchorman 0]

That's nonsense. There were questions about Whyte being fit and proper which the SFA pursued but allowed themselves to be fobbed off with spurious arguments and delays by his lawyers until it was too late.

 

That is just fancy jargon for - "the incompetents acted incompetently and did Jack Shit because they are no good at what they are meant to be good at". You put that up as though they nearly got it right.

 

How did they pursue it exactly?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

There was a FAP test but it was a lot weaker. It basically said 'Are you fit and proper?' and Whyte ticked the box that said 'Aye. Pyoor fut n'proaper' and the SFA thought that'd do them.

 

That's just nonsense, they pursued it as I said elsewhere they just didn't do it aggressively enough.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That is just fancy jargon for - "the incompetents acted incompetently and did Jack Shit because they are no good at what they are meant to be good at". You put that up as though they nearly got it right.

 

How did they pursue it exactly?

 

They were in correspondence with Whyte's lawyers but they started late and didn't finish and no doubt they learned from that experience.

[barca72 440]

I'm a little concerned about how we're approaching this. Many of us are taking up a position on this and that position is based on the previous board's actions and the fact that King is a bluenose, a millionaire and not Mike Ashley. The fact he seems to be unpopular with people we perceive as being 'anti-Rangers' also helps many of us form a position regarding him.

 

Like most of us I was very pleased when Ashley and the Easedale's were removed and thank King for his involvement in that.

 

However, when we leave that aside I am actually surprised King has been passed as fit and proper and I can understand why many people are perplexed by the decision. When looked at in black and white King isn't suitable for our club. Whatever we might think of the South African judicial system or its tax authorities King has a number of convictions there. He also remained a director of the club during Craig Whyte and also the worst excesses of Murray. At the very least that displays a serious error of judgement or the inability to grasp what was actually going on.

 

If anyone else was looking to takeover Rangers and he had numerous convictions for tax evasion had been a director of a football club that was involved in some poorly thought out tax planning, was massively in debt, was 'sold' to a conman and subsequently raped and pillaged again would we really be welcoming that person with open arms?

Caution and vigilance should be our cry just now. Celebrating this decision like a cup final winner really makes us look like we've learned nothing at all over the last five years.

 

 

We have never been given a complete explanation as to why SDM got the club into such a poor financial situation.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/part-two-every-question-every-5106986

 

 

Now was King incompetent or SDM too clever for his own board?

... " I know from being on the board, myself and David Murray were both putting money into the club, but David was a majority of one. What we didn’t know was that that money wasn’t David’s, it was the banks. The board at that time would never have approved it. At every board meeting, the question was always asked. There is nothing wrong with running a deficit if it is your own money. But it is irresponsible if it is not your own money. There is not a single person on that board knew that the money going into Rangers Football Club was coming through the Murray Group and that he had given his shares as security for the bank debt."

 

Right, wrong or indifferent - the man stuck to the task. If the S.A. government had a proper case they would have won. To rebuild Rangers we need the same kind of 'No Surrender' attitude.

... Q. Have you ever thought about giving up?

 

DK: “If you go back to the fit and proper test, one of the reasons I think I am fit and proper is, if you look at what happened to me in South Africa for eleven years, I showed resilience, I was willing to put money in, I was tenacious. That is what Rangers need right now. Some of the things I demonstrated in my fight in South Africa is what the club needs. I will hang around. I fought there for eleven years and I won. That is important, if you look at what happened, I won in the end and came out on top against the State. I have tried to show the same resilience with the Rangers situation." ...

 

Also, DK has often said that Rangers will not ever again be run by one man. Maybe he knows more than just speculation.

[Anchorman 0]

They were in correspondence with Whyte's lawyers but they started late and didn't finish and no doubt they learned from that experience.

 

I love it. As I said - total incompetents. "They started late and didn't finish". But the wee souls have learned from it. :-)

Some of us don't get cut that slack when we make a similar balls up in our work.

[JohnMc 2,483]

It's not major issue for me. Aggressive tax planning is just part of business and something I've been involved in. These things aren't black and white and are often matters of opinion.

 

Yeah I accept it's 'part of business' for some people, but not all. I'd also say there's a line between aggressive tax planning and breaking the law and King did the latter. That's not a matter of opinion. Whether he did it deliberately or not I've no way of knowing, but he did it and it reflects badly on him now.

 

I totally disagree with you. Under Murray he was a major shareholder, albeit with little of no influence. why shouldn't he remain on the board and put forward his opinion? I fail to see why it's an error in judgement or inability to grasp what's going on. I'd still want to put forward my point of view if in his position, and perhaps he managed to calm some of Murray's worst excesses with his views. In the situation of a majority shareholder, He was just a non-exec.

 

Likewise under Whyte, all the other "independent" directors had left. At least he could try and get the information, even though it was no secret that he was being shut out. Yes, he could have resigned but that would have given Whyte even more of free reign. I'm grateful that he did stay on and perhaps was ineffectual but his presence meant that one director could show that Whyte was acting illegally.

 

Here's my problem with King, he put a lot of money into the club and yet we're being told he had no say in how the club was run. Now he was either quite naive when he invested or that's not the truth. Either scenario doesn't paint him in a great light from a business perspective. If you're going to put £20 million into a business you'd want some say in how it was run, no?

 

I fully accept he wasn't involved with Whyte on an executive level but he should have distanced himself from what was happening. If he was being misled by Whyte, and many people clearly were, then you'd have hoped alarm bells might have rung a bit earlier than they did. He was on the inside and we weren't after all.

 

If there was any suggestion that he had any influence over the tax planning or the decision to run up debt or the sale to a conman then perhaps, but I've not read anywhere that he was supportive or involved in any of that, and to suggest that he was seems to be character assassination for the sake of it.

 

It's not meant as a character assassination. As above if he wasn't involved he should have been, if he wasn't supportive he should have spoken out and if he was being marginalised by Murray and then Whyte he should have done something about that. Look King clearly must have fairly good business acumen, he must have quite a strong personality and he must know when to stick and when to twist, it seems unlikely he could have become as wealthy as he did without those traits. Why did they desert him when it came to Rangers?

If someone had previously invested £20 million in another club and came back after getting rid of those who were draining the club for their own purposes saying he wanted to invest more do you not think he would be welcomed with open arms? I fail to see why people in this club don't.

 

Yes, he may not turn out to be what we hope he is, but he deserves a chance and surely has to be 100 times better than the previous status quo,

 

To be clear I'm broadly supportive of King and I certainly feel he's an improvement on the last few years. I just think as a support we should be more cautious, more watchful and less trusting. I find the celebrating that has happened since yesterday's announcement uncomfortable, the club has been very badly mismanaged by a series of people now, we shouldn't take it on trust that the current directors won't continue in that. King has, at best, made mistakes in the past, we should be careful he doesn't continue making them.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

That's just nonsense, they pursued it as I said elsewhere they just didn't do it aggressively enough.

 

Allowing for a bit of poetic licence on my part, I honestly can't see what your point is: 'there was a really stringent and thorough test but it just wasn't really stringent and thorough enough'. The SFA plainly stated they had 'limited' investigatory powers and therefore were heavily reliant on self-disclosure. I apologise if I'm misunderstaning you but you appear to be suggesting that everything was fine which, if so and given subsequent events, is one of the daftest things you've ever posted on here. And that, with due respect, is saying something.