JohnMc 2,473 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) 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. I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment, wish I'd written it myself. Edited May 20, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,170 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 DK was a remote operator in the Murray/Whyte era. In an ideal world he would have taken a bigger role but that shouldn't be held against him now that he is taking charge and there seems to be some pretty able people around him. As for the Hibs games - it's not his fault if Rangers lose. The Resurrection took three days. DK doesn't have that much power at his disposal. He's going to need time. I'll take a long term strategy over a quick fix. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Have you seen all the legal papers that the SFA have reviewed? Have you reviewed the expert legal views that the SFA have been given? If not then I don't see how you are in a position to agree or disagree with the SFA decision. However ultimately, whether we agree or disagree with the decision shouldn't be that important. What is important is that we have someone who has the club's best interests at heart. We have someone who has previously invested £20 million into the club and will hopefully invest more. Everything else is not that relevant and we should be looking to be positive and not come up with negatives on something that can only be in the club's best interests. I believe I am entitled to disagree on the basis of the statement that has been published by the SFA. As and when they elaborate on the legal advice etc, I will reconsider. The fact that Mr King invested in the Club previously is not part of the SFA criteria so far as I am aware; but the fact that he was part of the regime that saw the club suffer an insolvency event most certainly is. There is aboslutely no way that you can state as fact that Mr King's future involvement "can only be in the club's best interests."; that is total supposition on your part. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 What price P Murray as Chief Executive Officer, could that be why none has been appointed hitherto? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Ifs, buts and maybes are past now. King's there and that essentially concludes us getting our club back (despite Ashley's 9%). Now, as with all others, he has to show what he can do. Which is an utterly neutral demand. The past is the past, the stage for our future is set, the audience awaits the King with expectations high. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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. If that person had previously invested 20 million and was a fan yes I expect we would. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 What price P Murray as Chief Executive Officer, could that be why none has been appointed hitherto? We have a ceo. He's just suspended 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 There's a terrible rumour that McLeish will be the new manager with Alex Rae as number 2 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 There's a terrible rumour that McLeish will be the new manager with Alex Rae as number 2 Yes it is a terrible rumour. One of the worst in a while. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.