ian1964 10,416 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. And still do! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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. But were the charges serious? The joint statement with SARS described them as lesser counts....including failure to disclose information and failure to provide correct information. There are no overtones of dishonesty in either the statement or the charges. In particular he was not convicted of fraud or tax evasion or dishonesty. As regards his position on the board and the sale to Whyte...it was Murray who sold his shares to Whyte, not the Company itself. In a sense King was nothing more than an unwelcome sitting tenant 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Jim Spence and Tom English are absolutely livid! English: "I want to see the evidence to satisfy myself that he's fit and proper!" Why would anyone listen to TE?,see his article on CW take over below There may still be a lot of secrecy about Whyte's business plan for Rangers, but it is an indisputable fact that he has proven he has the funds to buy Murray's shares and pay-off the debt owing to Lloyds Banking Group. As far as bona fides go, that's not a bad start. Johnston accepts that Whyte has the wherewithal to end the Murray era and bring a conclusion to the divisive relationship with Lloyds. Whyte has deposited 28m as proof of his financial clout. He has spent a large six-figure sum on lawyers and accountants and due diligence stretching back six months. He has said publicly, more than once, that he is committed to investing 25m over five years on new players. Full article:http://www.scotsman.com/sport/tom-english-craig-whyte-s-rangers-takeover-bid-has-been-a-tortuous-process-1-1595764 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 the judge, cetris paribus, described him as "glib and mendacious liar". Your basing your whole opinion on what someone said about someone else - basically hearsay? Maybe it's good for a lot of people that not everyone does that... the judge was so sure, what did he convict DK of in this case? Was he put in prison for contempt of court? What actual gravitas did this accusation have? I read that a lot of that kind of stuff was quashed when some of the disingenuous work of SARS was revealed. It's easy to look like a liar when people are constantly making up evidence about you. It all just depends on who you believe rather than actual facts. He should be judged on his actions and convictions, not stuff someone said about him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Your basing your whole opinion on what someone said about someone else - basically hearsay? Maybe it's good for a lot of people that not everyone does that... the judge was so sure, what did he convict DK of in this case? Was he put in prison for contempt of court? What actual gravitas did this accusation have? I read that a lot of that kind of stuff was quashed when some of the disingenuous work of SARS was revealed. It's easy to look like a liar when people are constantly making up evidence about you. It all just depends on who you believe rather than actual facts. He should be judged on his actions and convictions, not stuff someone said about him. Judges often say things that are nonsense and which then get contradicted by a higher court. Just because a judge called King something, doesn't mean it was the final verdict of the SA court system. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Would rather prejudice the case replacing him while he's suspended. Perhaps a temporary appointment. Just to clarify, that's not what I meant. I meant that PM may be appointed when Llambias is finally dismissed, leaves or whatever. 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 (edited) But were the charges serious? Serious enough to warrant sentences of a "fine of R80 000.00 or 24 months' imprisonment on each of the 41 counts, being the maximum sentence provided for in the Income Tax Act read with the Adjustment of Fines Act 101 of 1991". The effective sentence, as confirmed in the agreement, is a fine of R3 280 000.00 or 984 months (82 years) imprisonment. Seems fairly serious to me but I understand your arguments in mitigation, I don't agree but at least you are not totally blind to the issues as are some on here. 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 simply impossible to take anyone who backed lambias opinion on fit and proper or directors seriously. It's simply impossible to take anyone who doesn't regard Vuckic as the most valuable player in our team right now with any degree of seriousness. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/1321047-rangers-chairman-dave-king-to-put-money-into-club-very-quickly/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Serious enough to warrant sentences of a "fine of R80 000.00 or 24 months' imprisonment on each of the 41 counts, being the maximum sentence provided for in the Income Tax Act read with the Adjustment of Fines Act 101 of 1991". The effective sentence, as confirmed in the agreement, is a fine of R3 280 000.00 or 984 months (82 years) imprisonment. Seems fairly serious to me but I understand your arguments in mitigation, I don't agree but at least you are not totally blind to the issues as are some on here. It was an agreement that got them all out of a hole, the SA authorities didn't need to continue with the more serious charges which after 10+ years they hadn't proved, despite all the time and money spent, and King could move on and get on with business. There was no way he was ever going to jail. 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.