the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 vat fraud..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Totally different, although his vat avioidance is near the bottom of the reasons why I don't want Easdale as a director. It's not totally different. There has been continual condemnation of puppet boards doing the bidding for others. While I am not equating King with Easdale, the situation that gunslinger proposed is little different. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 vast difference between being whytes puppets and being kings. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The last thing that is needed is more farce. King can't threaten forensics looking into past misdemeanours only to then have himself take on the Sandy Easdale shadow role. As I stated, if they have provisional clearance from the authorities, all will be well. Yes he can. There is no connection between the two. If King was considered 'not fit and proper' by the SFA to run the Club, but then took up a position that did not contravene SFA regulations then he is not breaking any 'law' that I can see. He is also entirely within his rights to pay for a legal team to investigate irregularities in the books, so long as the legal team are given access to those books by whoever has had SFA clearance as 'fit and proper'. If I had previously robbed a bank (not that DK fits that bill), then done my time, would that exclude me from complaining about any wrong doings against me for the rest of my days? All hypothetical of course as he will get SFA clearance. His case is even stronger now while SARS are under internal investigation for corruption (Kings case included) on a grand scale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,958 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Nothing is straightforward and regards DK, it won't be newspapers, messageboards, bloggers or spindoctors who would make any decisions on any representative involvement with Rangers, although they will try and influence supporters opinions and instill doubt. Let's seperate what would be the decision from the speculation. For many, the speculation is a tactic within the current 'battle' that kicked off in earnest on Friday evening when the EGM was called, the first major salvo was always going to be the Sunday newspapers. Questions 1. Would King have embarked on his plans if he thought he'd be refused when actually arriving at the door ? 2. Considering the cited convictions, why do the SA authorities allow him to sit on the board of registered companies that trade in the stock exchange ? ------------------------------------------------- I find it somewhat ironic that the media go down this line of the timely questioning of circumstances surronding individuals who put themselves forward to get involved in our boardroom saga when they have been posted missing when some of the 'robbing scheming bastards' were given a different treatment. What it points to is a standard of journalism that is reactionary and spoon-fed rather than investigative. Journalism that is used by others to further their interests (that includes 'various sides'). Journalism that is not independent and generally serves to prolong our agonies (& their sales). Journalism that was exploited by Sir Duped and Toxic back in the day to lay the ground for a less resistant enviroment re. fan opinion. As UKPLC strides forward in expensive shoes and 'lite regulation', the fabric of our society changes and the new cloth ain't pretty. Rangers have become a very public example of what can happen within this enviroment. Edited January 18, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes he can. There is no connection between the two. If King was considered 'not fit and proper' by the SFA to run the Club, but then took up a position that did not contravene SFA regulations then he is not breaking any 'law' that I can see. He is also entirely within his rights to pay for a legal team to investigate irregularities in the books, so long as the legal team are given access to those books by whoever has had SFA clearance as 'fit and proper'.If I had previously robbed a bank (not that DK fits that bill), then done my time, would that exclude me from complaining about any wrong doings against me for the rest of my days? All hypothetical of course as he will get SFA clearance. His case is even stronger now while SARS are under internal investigation for corruption (Kings case included) on a grand scale. SARS being under investigation will have no bearing on the SFA ruling. That will still be rumbling on long after King and Murray apply to the football authorities. I wasn't implying that King would be breaking any laws, just that it wouldn't be a compelling argument for a new era of transparency. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 vast difference between being whytes puppets and being kings. I would prefer to have a board who were capable of excelling on their own terms. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,412 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's not totally different. There has been continual condemnation of puppet boards doing the bidding for others. While I am not equating King with Easdale, the situation that gunslinger proposed is little different. Thought you were talking about the relative tax situations. FWIW I don't think Easdale is a "puppet" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I would prefer to have a board who were capable of excelling on their own terms. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned. that's for the executive part. dave king won't be doing day to day running anyway. we will have martin bain for that :devil: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Nothing is straightforward and regards DK, it won't be newspapers, messageboards, bloggers or spindoctors who would make any decisions on any representative involvement with Rangers, although they will try and influence supporters opinions and instill doubt. Let's seperate what would be the decision from the speculation. For many, the speculation is a tactic within the current 'battle' that kicked off in earnest on Friday evening when the EGM was called, the first major salvo was always going to be the Sunday newspapers. Questions 1. Would King have embarked on his plans if he thought he'd be refused when actually arriving at the door ? 2. Considering the cited convictions, why do the SA authorities allow him to sit on the board of registered companies that trade in the stock exchange ? ------------------------------------------------- I find it somewhat ironic that the media go down this line of the timely questioning of circumstances surronding individuals who put themselves forward to get involved in our boardroom saga when they have been posted missing when some of the 'robbing scheming bastards' were given a different treatment. What it points to is a standard of journalism that is reactionary and spoon-fed rather than investigative. Journalism that is used by others to further their interests (that includes 'various sides'). Journalism that is not independent and generally serves to prolong our agonies (& their sales). Journalism that was exploited by Sir Duped and Toxic back in the day to lay the ground for a less resistant enviroment re. fan opinion. As UKPLC strides forward in expensive shoes and 'lite regulation', the fabric of our society changes and the new cloth ain't pretty. Rangers have become a very public example of what can happen within this enviroment. 1. He wouldn't be the first person to do so, although I do think that he has had reassurance on the matter. 2. The SA authorities do not have a say in this, so that is neither here nor there. 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.