Rangers open the door to Dave King

[ian1964 10,761]

Personally if Dave King purchased the club for £50.000.000 tommorow and said i want every penny back and i will be increasing season ticket prices for the next ten years but it will clear out Blue Pitch, Margarita Holdings and all the hedge funds i would pay the extra to get shot of them all as long as they take the current board with them.

 

I think the majority of Rangers fans would do the same,me included

[the gunslinger 3,366]

i would pay money to see green co removed.

[Anchorman 0]

Are you being serious? Do you really want me to quote everything the learned judge said about Mr King AGAIN?

 

Do you really want me to tell you to stop being a condescending annoyance because you see yourself as a champion of all things legal and lawful. Your patronising responses are actually quite irritating. I know more about the SARS case than you think. You've actually peddled the "learned" judge's comments about a fellow bluenose being "untrustworthy" on such a regular basis that I think your naivety is staggering. Where is the balance? Have you ever commented on the fact that one of the most corrupt jurisdictions on the globe in recent times has been the South African? Or are you so blinded by titles that you naively believe that 'learned' chaps can't be wrong (like your 'learned' colleagues on the SFA that you defend).

[ian1964 10,761]

I back Dave King simply because he is a Rangers fan, none of the current board are.

[gisabeer 409]

We have to break the resolve of the faceless shareholders. The current board have their ear at present but if enough fans hold back with their sb monies i dont think it will be too long before cheasdale & co fall out of favour.

 

May will be a very telling month and it will be the fans who decide the future of our club. The only bargaining chip on the table is the SB revenue. The board have absolutely nothing to offer of any substance. The idle threats made by Mr Easdale and echoed in the 120 report only go to show the levels of desperation ripping out the boardroom.

 

The 120 day report was their last throw of the dice, but offered nothing new. A last gasp chance to gain some credibility with the fans. Instead the report treated the fans with the contempt that they have become accustomed to over the last couple of years.

 

They are on their knees. nothing left in the locker. I fully expect the rotten shower to implode over the next 30 days .

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

 

They are on their knees. nothing left in the locker. I fully expect the rotten shower to implode over the next 30 days .

 

I dare not dream but sincerely hope you are correct.

[der Berliner 3,803]

 

Do you really want me to tell you to stop being a condescending annoyance because you see yourself as a champion of all things legal and lawful. Your patronising responses are actually quite irritating. I know more about the SARS case than you think. You've actually peddled the "learned" judge's comments about a fellow bluenose being "untrustworthy" on such a regular basis that I think your naivety is staggering. Where is the balance? Have you ever commented on the fact that one of the most corrupt jurisdictions on the globe in recent times has been the South African? Or are you so blinded by titles that you naively believe that 'learned' chaps can't be wrong (like your 'learned' colleagues on the SFA that you defend).

 

After giving it to BH with all barrels ... do you think King is a Grade A businessman with a clean slate then?

[Anchorman 0]

After giving it to BH with all barrels ... do you think King is a Grade A businessman with a clean slate then?

 

Poor BH shouldn't condescend and he wouldn't get "all barrels" as you put it. Do you think the SA "learned" judiciary were "grade A" with "clean slates"? If you read my post again I asked for a bit a balance. The world knows how corrupt the SA legal system has been. Yet you, BH, RAB etc never mention it. Why? You would rather ridicule a fellow bluenose. In fact, a fellow bluenose whose £20m probably contributed towards some of the happiest times I've had inside Ibrox. Utterly bizzare.

[der Berliner 3,803]

Poor BH shouldn't condescend and he wouldn't get "all barrels" as you put it. Do you think the SA "learned" judiciary were "grade A" with "clean slates"? If you read my post again I asked for a bit a balance. The world knows how corrupt the SA legal system has been. Yet you, BH, RAB etc never mention it. Why? You would rather ridicule a fellow bluenose. In fact, a fellow bluenose whose £20m probably contributed towards some of the happiest times I've had inside Ibrox. Utterly bizzare.

 

Well, that is taking a rather liberal view on things. And of course I hear time and again how Mr. King "lost" 20m in Rangers already! IMHO, he would have "lost" them if he had looked for some sort of return or security or whatnot. You would have to ask him what he wanted these 20m been done with back then to actually get an answer for that. IMHO (again), he invested in the club as such, team, stadium et al and wanted to see it prosper and win trophies - back then. As any pundit did with buying a ST, only that King's investment was a little more generous. As much as we did not get our money back after the trophies were won and seasons went by, he didn't get his money back either. Unless some clever chaps suddenly whip up business stuff about shares et al, which would in turn tell us that King was looking for more than what your average Bluenose did (and does). Maybe he was not that generous after all?

As with much debate about the board, it is not exactly the case that anyone suspects or says that the RSA tax folk and judges have clean slates, but there also is that little issue about no smoke without fire and King actually paying certain fines. And that is not about trying to taint King's image, it is just telling facts. We can't have it one way with e.g. the board, but close our eyes for e.g. King or anyone else for that matter. And looking at this is not exactly taking sides either, BTW.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

Do you really want me to tell you to stop being a condescending annoyance because you see yourself as a champion of all things legal and lawful. Your patronising responses are actually quite irritating. I know more about the SARS case than you think. You've actually peddled the "learned" judge's comments about a fellow bluenose being "untrustworthy" on such a regular basis that I think your naivety is staggering. Where is the balance? Have you ever commented on the fact that one of the most corrupt jurisdictions on the globe in recent times has been the South African? Or are you so blinded by titles that you naively believe that 'learned' chaps can't be wrong (like your 'learned' colleagues on the SFA that you defend).

 

I certainly didn't mean to patronise you and I am sorry you find me so irritating. I am sure you know far more about the SARS case and SA justice than me. However, just because someone is a Rangers fan does not place them on some pedestal above criticism IMHO. You asked why “Why would you believe mischief making fabrication before an SA judge?” My answer is that according to said judge “He (Mr King) deliberately misrepresented the facts of the case to his legal representatives.” “As his evidence progressed, it became clear that he has no respect for the truth and does not hesitate to lie, or at least misrepresent the facts, if he thinks it will be to his advantage.”

 

It is easy for you to generalise about the SA justice system and I can’t comment because I haven’t studied it; but if you have evidence that this particular judge was or is corrupt then of course that would influence my opinion. Do you know if the judgement in that case was appealed and if so was anything made of the judge’s comments?