Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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. I didn't say it was part of the criteria. It is, however, part of how we should assess whether King will be good or not for our club. If you think he was able to do anything about the insolvency event then you have no idea as to how these things work. 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. Of course it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I backed King etc. to overthrow the last Board. Do I trust King ? To be honest not 100%, I'm not sure he will do all he said he would, but time will tell and at the moment there is no alternative. I hope the Supporter Groups will be vigilant and not be led up the garden path with empty promises. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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 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. . 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. 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. 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? 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. 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, 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Do I trust King ? To be honest not 100%, I doubt I'll ever totally trust a Rangers director ever again, but I'm willing to give those who appear to have the club's interests at heart a chance. 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 didn't say it was part of the criteria. It is, however, part of how we should assess whether King will be good or not for our club. If you think he was able to do anything about the insolvency event then you have no idea as to how these things work. This is where I disagree with you and almost everyone else (except JohnMc) it seems. The fact that Mr King invested in the Club previously and may do so again to the tune of £10m, £30m or £50m; does not change the fact that he was convicted of serious offences on his own volition in a criminal court where the judge, cetris paribus, described him as "glib and mendacious liar". I do not think it is good for the standing of our Club and I do not want such a person having anything to do with Rangers FC, I do not care how much money he has or plans to invest. Edited May 20, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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. So King's convictions were for "aggressive tax planning", that's disingenuous to say the least. Hopefully none of the companies you've assisted in this way have their tax domicile in SA 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 We have a ceo. He's just suspended So is he coming back then? No doubt the lawyers are earning a crust, batting his dismissal back and forward till there's an out of court settlelement "in the best interests of all concerned". 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 So is he coming back then? No doubt the lawyers are earning a crust, batting his dismissal back and forward till there's an out of court settlelement "in the best interests of all concerned". Would rather prejudice the case replacing him while he's suspended. Perhaps a temporary appointment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 So King's convictions were for "aggressive tax planning", that's disingenuous to say the least. Hopefully none of the companies you've assisted in this way have their tax domicile in SA You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. 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 It's simply impossible to take anyone who backed lambias opinion on fit and proper or directors seriously. 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.