calscot 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) "Just because someone is a tax dodger does not mean they are a gangster." If we apply your logic to Al Capone then he wasn't a gangster either. That's not good logic. That does not follow at all. What the logic says is that just because Capone was convicted of tax evasion does not mean he was a gangster. The fact he was a gangster is irrelevant to that logic. Here's an easier example for you of your own logic: Just because you are an F1 driver does not mean you drive a Red Bull. "Vettel is an F1 driver so that means Vettel doesn't drive a Red Bull". Edited July 10, 2013 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 It's a frustrating thread this. All of us hold various beliefs on a whole host of subjects. Some of those beliefs are based on personal experience. The fact you experienced something doesn't mean anyone else ever has though. Your experience will have been shaped by your background, your expectation, your understanding and how you felt at that particular time. It's a very subjective thing. Other beliefs you hold will be based on what you've been told. The person doing the telling and your capacity to accept their version of that story will shape your belief. So something a close friend or family member tells you will probably hold more value to you than something from a complete stranger for example. You may chose to trust a certain politician, or journalist, or specific news organisation but not another. You may chose to trust the police or you might be hugely distrustful of the police depending on your own experiences with them. You might trust your boss with your life or you might think they are someone to be watched carefully and analyse everything they say for an agenda. I've only ever knowingly met one person who posts on this forum. The rest of you are all strangers to me and me to you. As such over time you form a view of the person behind the posts, you begin to attach more or less significance to what they post. You perhaps value their contribution on certain subjects more than others. Whatever your views most of us probably put more 'value' on what Bluedell and Forlan's Sister have to say on financial matters for example because over time they've demonstrated an insight and understanding of those matters. Likewise posters like Frankie, Calsot and Andy Steel are articulate contributors to the culture surrounding the club, I've learned to appreciate what they say on those matters. Who among us doesn't value Elfideldo's take on our youth's? I've never at any point asked Elfideldo to prove his credentials though, to explain why I should believe what he writes. I've not asked Frankie to show me his sociology degree (Andy posts his on Facebook every couple of weeks mind!!:-)) or Bluedell or Forlan to invite me into their Chartered Accountancy practice and prove to me their credentials. I'm able to make my own mind up on who they are and what they say based on the ridiculous amount of time I misspend reading about Rangers on forums. So here's the thing. I doubt anyone is going to publicly post what they've heard on this subject. Even if they did I very much doubt they could prove it, it would probably be second hand information anyway. Even those with first hand experience would only be able to give you anecdotal evidence, and they'd be insane to do that on a public forum like this. So you choose what value you put on the posts that are wary of our newest director based on your own experience of that poster. To ask for more information is pointless, you won't get it, and even if you did it's unlikely to be empiric. Some are vary wary, concerned even. I certainly am, don't ask me why though because I've no intention of posting it. What I would say is this. Aside from the 'other stuff' what does this man bring to the board? What experience does he have? Has he run a large sports organisation before? Has he experience of dealing with the complexities of 'the city of London'? Does he have insight into football governance, perhaps experience of the SFA or UEFA? Is he a CA or a lawyer perhaps, does he bring those skills to the board? Perhaps he's a skilled negotiator, used to dealing with football agents and sponsors? Does he have extensive retail experience maybe? What is it he brings, how does his appointment improve our board and our club? Anyone? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 (edited) (Not directed at you Zappa: ) Aye, good one dB. You can't get away with quoting me and addressing me under that pretense! See, this is what starts to annoy people "not in the know". The Easdales are "gangsters" as "we all know" and if you don't "just ask the people from Inverclyde" (how?) and "rest assured that you do not want to know anyway". The actual information in somesuch borders to zero. Half a thread is filled with somesuch, the rest with questions. In essence, an utter waste of space and time. I could just have used google to get some info, but had actually hoped that some "local" can give some more valuable, non-press-filtered info. dB, all I said was that yesterday was a sad day for the club and I was prompted by someone else here to say more, but the fact of the matter is that the Easdales have already been discussed and we already went through all this when they first arrived on the scene. There was absolutely no need for anyone to know the specifics of why I thought it was a sad day for the club because it was pretty bloody obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for 3 months and isn't trying to shit stir. Anyway besides that, hopefully this will clarify my stance for you without leaving even a shadow of a doubt. I don't want to start throwing specific accusations around about these men because: a) it's not legal to make specific public accusations about someone's crimes (or in this case suspected crimes!) b) the main pieces of info I've seen aren't first hand, they were shown to me by a man (highly respectable I might add) who's from the same area. c) the suspected crimes are of a severely violent nature which would make most sane people not want to say too much; the type of crimes which would make people keep their mouths shut out of fear. d) we're talking about circumstantial evidence, there appears to have been no solid proof or the people behind the crimes would have been jailed. Now you and the rest of the "show us the proof" guys can make of that what you will and I honestly don't care less if you think it's a pile of rubbish or think anything else about it. Think whatever you like, but please don't expect me or anyone else to say any more. Certainly in my case I've said too much already and far more than I would ever have wanted to about this subject, so I won't be providing any more details of what I know or don't know. If that still amounts to no information of value for you, I really don't care. The purpose of my reply is simply to give an explanation as to why I can't and won't provide more details. There is certainly no "we all know and you don't" type attitude. The reason I said to 54 that he doesn't want to know, is actually that I really don't think the specific details should be printed here on the forum. In fact, I think too much has been said already now. We're talking about people suspected of particularly nasty crimes and IMO these people should NOT be associated with Rangers. Edited July 10, 2013 by Zappa typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,435 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Aye, good one dB. You can't get away with quoting me and addressing me under that pretense! But I got away? Thing is, you did the same as quite a few before you and I took it as sample. Nothing sinister or anything directed at you. As I said. Now you and the rest of the "show us the proof" guys can ... Maybe people should differentiate a little between people wanting someone else's argument being backed up by facts (while holding to one own's argument), and people simply looking for info. As is the case with me. As I said, I had hope for some info from people closer to Govan and Ibrox than me. I can use google and find all sorts of interesting stuff, but how should I be able to discern whether it is objective? It might still not be legal, but if you place "was supposed to be" or "is allegedged to have" in front of anything, within your country's freedom of speech rules you should have no problem, unless there is nothing to back this up. Again, I'm not looking to make Easdale "looking better", I look for general info. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Gangsters Al Capone Easdales tax evasion, what does that make King ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 But I got away? Thing is, you did the same as quite a few before you and I took it as sample. Nothing sinister or anything directed at you. As I said. Maybe people should differentiate a little between people wanting someone else's argument being backed up by facts (while holding to one own's argument), and people simply looking for info. As is the case with me. As I said, I had hope for some info from people closer to Govan and Ibrox than me. I can use google and find all sorts of interesting stuff, but how should I be able to discern whether it is objective? It might still not be legal, but if you place "was supposed to be" or "is allegedged to have" in front of anything, within your country's freedom of speech rules you should have no problem, unless there is nothing to back this up. Again, I'm not looking to make Easdale "looking better", I look for general info. Well, you'll need to get the general info you seek from someone else dB because I've said more than enough already. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 But I got away? Thing is, you did the same as quite a few before you and I took it as sample. Nothing sinister or anything directed at you. As I said. Maybe people should differentiate a little between people wanting someone else's argument being backed up by facts (while holding to one own's argument), and people simply looking for info. As is the case with me. As I said, I had hope for some info from people closer to Govan and Ibrox than me. I can use google and find all sorts of interesting stuff, but how should I be able to discern whether it is objective? It might still not be legal, but if you place "was supposed to be" or "is allegedged to have" in front of anything, within your country's freedom of speech rules you should have no problem, unless there is nothing to back this up. Again, I'm not looking to make Easdale "looking better", I look for general info. What you are missing here is the nature of these alleged crimes. There is a reason that people are unwilling to post them - some wills ay it is because they have no proof (fair enough), some will say it is because without proof they leave themselves open to being sued (fair enough) whilst one which is almost being ignored and is just as pertinent.... is that people may be unwilling to post them for fear of retribution - which goes to the initial statement about the nature of the crimes. Sometimes dB, even is people would LIKE to apprise you of what they are, the fear of consequences is greater than the need to provide information. That is my take on it - I have heard some of the rumours though I am sure not all - I have absolutely NO knowledge of these guys, none at all. The bigger thing for me is what amms posted - just what does this chap bring to the table in terms of running a footballing institution - sure, he seems to have a thriving bus business, but that is a far cry from running a football club and dealing with the relevant authorities therein. Hopefully he can bring some added value but time will tell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Gangsters Al Capone Easdales tax evasion, what does that make King ? Has King actually been convicted of tax evasion ? I thought that SARS lost a number of their cases against him whilst the remainder are still outstanding - or am I incorrect ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Gangsters Al Capone Easdales tax evasion, what does that make King ? IMO King's past record with the tax authorities (alleged or otherwise) scores against him as an owner but he seems to be the best option out there. An ideal candidate would be a dyed-in-the-wool Rangers fan with an excellent (and clean) record of running businesses. Given the choice of imperfect candidates what's better - a dodgy character with a genuine love for the club, or a successful businessman with no emotional attachment or interest in the long-term well being of RFC? It's a tough call. I've no idea how much the Easdales care about the club. I heard they were Morton fans, but not from any worthwhile source. As other have noted here, probably the more pertinent question is: Why has he been appointed? (Along with: Why were Cenkos dropped?) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Has King actually been convicted of tax evasion ? I thought that SARS lost a number of their cases against him whilst the remainder are still outstanding - or am I incorrect ? http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/03/20/king-strikes-confidential-deal-with-sars http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/06/28/player-in-court-wrangle-with-king-curator-over-stud-farm 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.