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

[forlanssister 3,050]

Some people forgetting that the reasoning behind the FPP "test" is to protect clubs.

 

Does anyone actually believe that by rejecting Dave King as a Director that the SFA would have been protecting Rangers in any shape or form?

[Anchorman 0]

Some people forgetting that the reasoning behind the FPP "test" is to protect clubs.

Does anyone actually believe that by rejecting Dave King as a Director that the SFA would have been protecting Rangers in any shape or form?

 

Great point!

[Bluedell 5,329]

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.

 

Yeah, that sometimes has to be done. I've paid off HMRC in the past just to get rid of them even though I believed they were wrong, as I didn't want to spend a lot of time and money in an argument in which there was a risk that we may have lost and could have cost even more .

[Bluedell 5,329]

Some people forgetting that the reasoning behind the FPP "test" is to protect clubs.

 

Does anyone actually believe that by rejecting Dave King as a Director that the SFA would have been protecting Rangers in any shape or form?

 

I think it's clear that some do.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

The fact that there was a question around King's FAP status but none around Whyte or Green or Ashley highlights the complete absurdity of the rules as they currently stand. But it wouldn't be the SFA if they didn't turn a laudable concern for their members' continued well-being into a total cake and arse party. The FAP test is designed to protect individual clubs and not as some sort of moral crusade. I would hope that nobody would give unquestioned support to any regime at Rangers. But the idea that, in terms of the best interests of Rangers, as an SFA member, King is somehow worse than the previous incumbents is, frankly, fucking ludicrous.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Oleg_Mcnoleg

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

Some people forgetting that the reasoning behind the FPP "test" is to protect clubs.

 

Does anyone actually believe that by rejecting Dave King as a Director that the SFA would have been protecting Rangers in any shape or form?

 

Pity they didn't use it before Whyte got Rangers then. Or did they deliberately not apply it to Whyte? After all the SFA were well-warned about Whyte were they not?

[craig 5,199]

Pity they didn't use it before Whyte got Rangers then. Or did they deliberately not apply it to Whyte? After all the SFA were well-warned about Whyte were they not?

 

The test was put in place BECAUSE of Whyte, therefore they couldn't really use it on Whyte as it wasn't in place at that point in time (at least I don't think so).

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

The test was put in place BECAUSE of Whyte, therefore they couldn't really use it on Whyte as it wasn't in place at that point in time (at least I don't think so).

 

Whether it was in place or not their inaction is something I will never be able to comprehend. They were well warned about Whyte & did nothing

[craig 5,199]

Whether it was in place or not their inaction is something I will never be able to comprehend. They were well warned about Whyte & did nothing

 

What did the SFA's Articles provide them with the authority to do ? Serious question as I don't know.

 

I do find it somewhat amusing that we lambast HMRC for applying their updated legislation retrospectively and then, at the same time, complaining that the SFA DIDNT apply their FAPP test retrospectively.

[Guest Ruth]

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.

 

Sometimes it can be interesting to go back to previous articles in order to discover where rumours seem to come from. With regards to this one ['the judge, cetris paribus, described him as "glib and mendacious liar"]. ( Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani) appears as far back as an article from Tuesday 19, 2011 and appears to be reprinted verbatim in today's issue of The Scotsman. What I find most interesting about this is the author of the article (Tom English) and the complete lack of reference as to where he got his quotes from. (the article is referenced above with a link .. by ian1964. Whenever quotations are used, typically there is a reference to go along with it, yet in this case there is none. One can assume that the quotation is ligit and came from a ligit source but that is only an assumption. It could quite as easily have come from a totally unrelated incident and have been said by the authors grand daughter for all the reader actually knows. Now, I am not as familiar with this Tom English guy as most of you guys are (having lived for a good many years in Canada) but, judging from the lack of credibility from the press here in Scotland that I have seen in the year since being back, and judging on the interview/debate from last night (my first opportunity to actually hear this guy), I would put about as much faith in his word as I would the gossip who used to live down the street from me in Canada. (aka none).

 

I think it is important, that when one does research on a particular person or topic, or even does a quick google search, that they hit -every link- rather than just the ones that appear to publish their own interpretations of events. With regards to King and this whole tax thing, there are quite a few opposing points of view from the popular ones here in the Scottish press, and these seem to put a different slant as to his character, ability to pay and his success as a business man. I found it particularly interesting to note how investigations into SARS itself, -could- have given King the mandate to defy all charges since there appears to be evidence that the evidence collected was done by illegal means. He chose to accept the events however, seemingly in favour of moving forward.

 

Regardless of the pro's or con's to this whole thing, the fact that a battle with the income tax people lasted for 13 years and came to a 'draw' conclusion (aka, SARS received money and King gets to continue on with business as normal) shows quite a few things about King; very good negotiation skills, tremendous tenacity . His business history shows him to be extremely capable with regards to growing a business successfully and a mindset that is equally or more than a match for those who would oppose him. Now, certainly, the nay-sayers at this point would be saying 'this can bite you in the ar***, what's to stop him just going back to SA and enjoying life there, but if you are like me at all and tend to believe the old adage that tigers don't change their stripes, then it would seem that he has plenty of opportunity to have done that already.

 

I am uncomfortable with pitting any single man into the role of a 'saviour' simply because of the fact that everyone is human and has faults and agendas and such. Putting people on a pedestal means invariably that they will one day fall off from that pedestal so to me, that begs for disappointment for all parties concerned. However, by keeping ones eyes open, and maintaining a clear mind and refraining from hyper, irrational thinking, I believe we are on the path to stable ground.