compo 7,228 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 What's taking them so blinking long to give him the thumbs up? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 They are looking at every way they can to give him the thumbs down. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Liewell wants to know more about King's financial affairs than King wants to tell him. ( nosy SoB ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigcid 0 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Trying to f--k us for pre season we can't attract players and we can't plan for next season ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,815 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Looking at it from our angle, you do wonder what the impartial SFA will be looking for to reject him. Here's a rich Bear who wants his club do well and stand on safe feet. Whatever he's done in the past, rightly or wrongly, was done under his own free will. He was the boss at his companies. What happened under SDM and even Whyte was beyond his spheres of influence. Whatever he will do in the future at Rangers will not be a solitary job, as he is not the owner or the like. We have half a dozen people up there next to him as directors (sooner or later), a dozen or so shareholders who will look over his shoulder. This is no Whyte or Romanov scenario. NB: It has been suggested on FF that he might not have provided the SFA with all the documents they wanted to see though. So it may not the SFA holding things up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,761 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 The fact that DK history is publicly available to everyone and anyone just proves what a farce this FAPP test is,just what is it the SFA/SPFL don't know about him?,just another fuck up by Scottish football. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 NB: It has been suggested on FF that he might not have provided the SFA with all the documents they wanted to see though. So it may not the SFA holding things up. He will be presumed not fit and proper on the SFA criteria and it will be up to him to prove otherwise. I would think that at the outset they would have said to him that it appears you are not fit and proper on our criteria, what do you have to say to that? I suspect that whatever he has said or whatever documents he has provided, has not changed their minds (except in relation to the Whyte era) and that they will have said to him recently, we are minded to find that you are not fit and proper but we are happy to give you a further period to prove otherwise. If he is challenging the validity of his self confessed convictions in SA, then it is difficult to know what documentation he might provide. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I think that this is not a fight that the SFA really need to pick. If they can't tell shit from shinolla, they may find that they are going to cost themselves more heartache. Ask Peter, he says it's costing him £10M per year. Just what kind of power does Regan's crew think they actually wield without their money-earner? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 He will be presumed not fit and proper on the SFA criteria and it will be up to him to prove otherwise. I would think that at the outset they would have said to him that it appears you are not fit and proper on our criteria, what do you have to say to that? I suspect that whatever he has said or whatever documents he has provided, has not changed their minds (except in relation to the Whyte era) and that they will have said to him recently, we are minded to find that you are not fit and proper but we are happy to give you a further period to prove otherwise. If he is challenging the validity of his self confessed convictions in SA, then it is difficult to know what documentation he might provide. You might end up being correct in the end Alan, but from what we all (publicly) currently know, that would seem like a bunch of biased assumptions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 You might end up being correct in the end Alan, but from what we all (publicly) currently know, that would seem like a bunch of biased assumptions. I'm just commenting on the precedure and why there might be a delay at this point whereas PM has been approved. I don't think anyone has argued that there isn't a prima facie case against him being fit and proper based on the crtieria in the SFA Rules. My point is really that it's up to him to prove otherwise it's not up to the SFA to do that. I am long past the point where I am arguing the merits of his case, these arguments have been very well rehearsed. 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.