The Reqs the facts (from RM)

[Mountain Bear 0]

What sort of bar or free pass does DK receive if he were ever to become involved..

 

A fair question, albeit sidestepping the point re Easdale.

 

Ideally, I wouldn't have DK as a director either. He can invest without being on the Board. However, there are important differences with Easdale's situation. DK's fraud charges were not pursued by the South African state, and he accepted liability in respect of 41 lesser counts of contravening section 75 of the Income Tax Act.

 

So, back to Easdale...any concerns at all?

[crucible 0]

A fair question, albeit sidestepping the point re Easdale.

 

Ideally, I wouldn't have DK as a director either. He can invest without being on the Board. However, there are important differences with Easdale's situation. DK's fraud charges were not pursued by the South African state, and he accepted liability in respect of 41 lesser counts of contravening section 75 of the Income Tax Act.

 

So, back to Easdale...any concerns at all?

 

Side step, I have no problem with Easdale his conviction is spent, BH fully narrated the criminal code under which DK admitted guilt and plea bargained to avoid jail time from the same court documents which I read..

[TheWeissMan 0]

A compromise suggestion for all fans to get behind then; dump Stockbridge, back Murdoch & Wilson, drop the Murray's as they appear to be divisive figures for many, and leave the remainder of the current board in situ for now (much as I'd like us to get rid of Easdale).

 

I think most fans would accept that.

 

Go back to pre 28th November and i would have agreed to that. Not so sure now. I mean there was a guy there slating a FD whilst holding up a copy of our Year End Accounts and believing that £10m had went on Directors Salaries and Bonuses.

 

Im not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Deliberately mis-stating or just plain daft.

[crucible 0]

Go back to pre 28th November and i would have agreed to that. Not so sure now. I mean there was a guy there slating a FD whilst holding up a copy of our Year End Accounts and believing that £10m had went on Directors Salaries and Bonuses.

 

Im not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Deliberately mis-stating or just plain daft.

 

Still trying to equate Muir's role in the reduction of debt, was he defacto running the club as his patient.

[Mountain Bear 0]

Side step, I have no problem with Easdale his conviction is spent, BH fully narrated the criminal code under which DK admitted guilt and plea bargained to avoid jail time from the same court documents which I read..

 

We'll need to agree to differ on Easdale then. I don't think any of the current protagonists deserve that level of unequivocal support.

[chilledbear 16]

We'll need to agree to differ on Easdale then. I don't think any of the current protagonists deserve that level of unequivocal support.

 

One thing, you wouldn't be able to pick holes in anything the current Board have said!!

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Go back to pre 28th November and i would have agreed to that. Not so sure now. I mean there was a guy there slating a FD whilst holding up a copy of our Year End Accounts and believing that £10m had went on Directors Salaries and Bonuses.

 

Im not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Deliberately mis-stating or just plain daft.

 

it's a shame you don't hold yourself to such high standards of accuracy.

[Calgacus 8]

What sort of bar or free pass does DK receive if he were ever to become involved..

 

What has DK got to do with this? - he's not involved, Easdale is.

[Mountain Bear 0]

Go back to pre 28th November and i would have agreed to that. Not so sure now. I mean there was a guy there slating a FD whilst holding up a copy of our Year End Accounts and believing that £10m had went on Directors Salaries and Bonuses.

 

Im not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Deliberately mis-stating or just plain daft.

 

The underlying point he was making was valid, but I agree he didn't articulate it clearly. I don't believe he was deliberately lying, nor do I think he's stupid.

 

As I've said in this thread already tonight, I don't think any of them are perfect or deserve our unequivocal support.

 

We need to be vigilant and healthily skeptical whoever wins the AGM vote.

[Super_Ally 0]

I am just posting something that was written on another forum that wasn't on here so people can read it. I understand a lot of people have already made up their mind, but there is no harm in them learning/reading more. If it had all of been hear say I would not of bothered, but the person has went out their way to back it up and remove personal opinion. It just seems that anything good about the board gets jumped on straight away here, surely the more information provided about both sides can only be good.

 

If the names in the article had been replaced with members of the current board I am guessing the tone towards it would be completely different.

 

Fair and reasonable looking response. Yet these painstakingly researched (if not always correct) articles only seem to come at it from one side. Maybe throwing out one or two articles doing the same detective work on the current directors or other subjects to do with the club would make it look less agenda driven?