Frankie 8,186 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I think there is a certain poster who's post history makes interesting viewing. union/radancer or whatever alias he/she uses nowadays has always been interesting over the years. I think it's important to have contrary views but it's also important these are delivered appropriately. King clearly plays fast and loose with various aspects of his business work so he leaves himself open to the harsher stuff. However, we're kidding ourselves on if this hasn't happened at Rangers or anywhere else now and again. In this instance, I think strong criticism of King is appropriate but the name-calling less so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuGers 477 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 union/radancer or whatever alias he/she uses nowadays has always been interesting over the years. I think it's important to have contrary views but it's also important these are delivered appropriately. King clearly plays fast and loose with various aspects of his business work so he leaves himself open to the harsher stuff. However, we're kidding ourselves on if this hasn't happened at Rangers or anywhere else now and again. In this instance, I think strong criticism of King is appropriate but the name-calling less so. There have been a lot of posts throwing in unsubstantiated rubbish. And always negative. It's almost as if someone would want false negative stories to be spread amongst the fans. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Well, that looks like claims and counter-claims with not much meat to the respective bones, so the judge has to decide which claim is more valid. BTW, I don't think he needs the 11m handy when making that "buy-out" attempt, as not that many will be willing to sell their shares below market value. But I would assume he also does not want to spend a few hundred k on an attempt that is by default doomed from the off. To which the judge may agree to. I think that has been DK's main reason since it all emerged. Everyone one knows that shares will not change hands for the minimum value required by TOP, so why even bother going through the process to begin with - total waste of everyone's time & money, for a pointless exercise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) Cal - " For me his main arguments should be about whether or not he was in a concert party due to the circumstances at the time, and the futility of the offer. " I think only a blind man couldn't see that King was working with the others. They were never out the media being photographed together. I'd say you're right. He's at it. As for the futility of the offer - again I agree. But them's the rules. I'd assume his lawyer is due a boot in the baws for this one. I don't disagree with you about concert party thing but it's the only one than has a burden of proof, and as such the most defendible. About the rules, the EBTs were within the rules, but the courts chose "common sense" (although ignored the common sense of what could be interpreted as "entrapment" and also the statute of limitations)... I do think though that in this case he's embarrassing himself, the club and fans with the defences of being skint, not know the rules and not controlling his company/trust. When he decided to go to court, I actually thought he had some good legal reasons or at least just exposing the ludicrousness of the decision. Edited October 13, 2017 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I don't disagree with you about concert party thing but it's the only one than has a burden of proof, and as such the most defendible. About the rules, the EBTs were within the rules, but the courts chose "common sense" (although ignored the common sense of what could be interpreted as "entrapment" and also the statute of limitations)... I do think though that in this case he's embarrassing himself, the club and fans with the defences of being skint, not know the rules and not controlling his company/trust. When he decided to go to court, I actually thought he had some good legal reasons or at least just exposing the ludicrousness of the decision. I'll disagree slightly mate. EBT's properly applied were at the time legal although HMRC as with most of those schemes said they reserved the right to address them at some point in the future. What cooked Rangers was the side letters which were not legal. The common sense bit came at the hearing in Scotland. Like the Heidi Poon decision at the FTT the law was not being applied properly - probably because she is not a tax expert. King imo is fecked. I thought that before he went to court. Rabbiting on about throwing 50 or 60 million at Rangers only to turn around at court claiming to be skint smacks of the actions of a fool or a liar. I don't want either in a position of power at Ibrox. There's been too many of them recently. 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.