Good Read ! Daviesleftpeg

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Bonkers, paranoid, conspiracy theory, and utterly blinkered blog, imho.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Bonkers, paranoid, conspiracy theory, and utterly blinkered blog, imho.

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

49 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said:

Speaks for itself.. .

https://twitter.com/search?q=no credit line from a bank&s=09

 

 

Every single message you have highlighted in the above

link says "no credit line from a bank".

BA said   "no credit line at any bank".

It's not the same terminology at all.

 

You're a Dave King fan

You're a fan of Dave King

Close but different.

No surprise though to see you try to quell any dissent of the board by deflection and bullshit underhand accusations.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

1 hour ago, Pure_Quality said:

Speaks for itself.. .

https://twitter.com/search?q=no credit line from a bank&s=09

 

I think you need another shovel, as you obviously can't dig holes quick enough.

Did you win the class prize for being a snake at school? In fact, did you even do school?!

 

 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

3 hours ago, BloodRunsBlue said:

 

Every single message you have highlighted in the above

link says "no credit line from a bank".

BA said   "no credit line at any bank".

It's not the same terminology at all.

 

You're a Dave King fan

You're a fan of Dave King

Close but different.

No surprise though to see you try to quell any dissent of the board by deflection and bullshit underhand accusations.

Par for the course for PQ. I'm wondering if king has king hired him as a private dick? He couldn't put an argument up for shit, so let's try and demonise a poster for presenting the facts. The same with the whole king fan boy club. Their heads are so far up king's erse, they can't breath, far less think for themselves.

The snake is more to be pitied than scorned. I feel his pain. 

[Virtuoso 27,180]

He has since updated the article, to include this:

Quote

Would seem once again that the voting system in the Club 1872 elections is flawed. An individual discovered this late last night and reported it. I seem to remember this also being the case for the merger vote between RF & RST. Yes, indeed, I was able to place more than one vote. Are darker forces at work here?  Which then raises the question; “What if someone had a list of members who hadn’t voted and used their votes?” Could someone with influence and an agenda have access to this?

Could someone, lets say figuratively speaking, from the Working Party know who hadn’t voted and place votes for whom they favoured? After all I believe over half the former members hadn’t changed over to Club 1872.

Is this not leaving the system wide open for abuse? Would someone wanting wee pals from the FYF Loyal on board really sink to these depths? Or perhaps there’s nothing to worry about. Not as if we have a bitter individual who’d want to influence an outcome and be undemocratic whilst going about those aims. Or is there?

https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2016/09/29/nepotism-not-professionalism/

[Louden_Greg 827]

FYF?

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 hour ago, Louden_Greg said:

1. It is subjective regarding what's most beneficial but the fans having a shareholding (which is the ringfenced aim for around £1m of funds) is a legitimate benefit that few can deny imo (cue corky).  I know you have a personal trust issue with the likes of Dingwall but no one in charge of money in 1872 has any dubiety or question marks around them. 

2. I don't know the details of this but how can an org that hasn't even got its board in place have already had its chance? Surely you need to let the new board in before you judge? though given the personal nature I can understand your anger at a lack of reply and that is something that clearly isn't good enough 

3. This "not independent" thing is a bit of a broad accusation imo. The decision making process is independent and the members are the ones who ratify key decisions. Was that discussed?

4. If someone has all the facts and decides to cancel then fair enough. I fear that people's preconceptions that I don't believe are correct will hinder something that I truly believe can benefit the club. It won't be smooth sailing but the goal is worth the effort. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond

1) Yup it's subjective and in my opinion it is not beneficial.

How is it undeniable to say there's no benefit to fans having around 1million of funds ring-fenced for shares when you have zero faith in a lot of the Rangers support - especially the types of people pulling the strings at Rangers First/RST/Club1872?

I don't even trust the chancers in charge of the club - all of whom the people in Rangers First/RST/Club1872 are very cosy with. This is nothing to do with Dingwall.

For every Dingwall we know about there's loads more like him who are under the radar & yet to be unearthed like him. These groups bring them all out eventually.

2) You don't know the details, but I do.

At the time when I was putting together my emails & case to them I was doing it with an open mind and the Club1872 working group done absolutely nothing except toe the official party line of the club (despite my emails being very detailed, specific & of a personal nature asking some probing questions dating back to their initial Hampden statement which they seem to have renegaded on.)

It's an absolute cop-out for you or anyone to claim "ah but it was the working group/unelected board in place" ... what does that matter? were you not taking in donations, payments and direct debits for Club1872 when the working group was there? was it a non-entity or something because it was the working group? ... how can you fund it, promote it, advertise it, develop it and run it when it's "the working group" on one hand but then use the same logic when it's being held to account by saying "yeah but that's just the working group" ... also is no-one that's on the working group running for election? that's double standards.

One small correction to my original comment that you quoted - I did in fact get an email from them, but it was just an initial email acknowledgement saying something along the lines of they would look at it and "be in touch" ... it's the reply after that with the proper response that wasn't forthcoming, the follow-up. Just to be clear.

3) You might consider it a broad allegation but it's completely justified and with merit. It's been done to death a million times in the boardroom section with responses on either side and going round in circles.

My own personal, informed and reasoned opinion is that it's in no way independent of the club.

Expand a bit for me on how the decision making proccess is done - Who decides what get's proposed and what get's brought to the table to vote on for all the members to ratify? this working group?

4) Again, I relayed the facts that are known to me, gave my opinion and also my own personal insight and predictions for it. It was ultimately upto them what to do.

I'd never tell anyone how to spend their money (the same way I take serious issue at anyone telling me to boycott season tickets last season and merchandise this season - it's a two-way street that) but there's no difference to me giving someone my insight on the group on Sunday there and people who are for the group giving them their insight and they can make their own mind up - that's what happened originally when the Rangers First people convinced them way back ... I only did the same thing on Sunday with my own input and opinions and they seemed to agree.

[Leeds_Bear 8,110]

4 hours ago, Virtuoso said:

We had something productive which was working, it was called Rangers First.

The issue was, that having achieved what they did (in around 15 months or so) was more than the RST managed in 12 years. This subsequently didn't bode well with Herr Dingwall and Co who realised that their gravy train was about to come to a screeching halt...so moves were made to table a proposal to amalgamate the two (despite previous assurances that this would and could never happen).

The issue is further compounded by those who were previously associated with the RST, then becoming part of the C1872 Working Group...and that's before you factor in who is standing for a place on the new board (aided by Herr Dingwall and Co).

So yes, we did learn how to work together, but certain people sold out...

You've just confirmed my point. 

[Louden_Greg 827]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

1) Yup it's subjective and in my opinion it is not beneficial.

How is it undeniable to say there's no benefit to fans having around 1million of funds rinfenced for shares when you have zero faith in a lot of the Rangers support - especially the types of people pulling the strings at Rangers First/RST/Club1872?

I don't even trust the chancers in charge of the club - all of whom the people in Rangers First/RST/Club1872 are very cosy with. This is nothing to do with Dingwall.

For every Dingwall we know about there's loads more like him who are under the radar & yet to be unearthed like him. These groups bring them all out eventually.

2) You don't know the details, but I do.

At the time when I was putting together my emails & case to them I was doing it with an open mind and Club1872 working group done absolutely nothing except toe the official party line of the club (despite my emails being very detailed, specific & of a personal nature asking some probing questions dating back to their initial Hampden statement which they seem to have renegaded on.)

It's an absolute cop-out for you or anyone to claim "ah but it was the working group/unelected board in place" ... what does that matter? were you not taking in donations, payments and direct debits for Club1872 when the working group was there? was it a non-entity or something because it was the working group? ... how can you fund it, promote it, advertise it, develop it and run it when it's "the working group" on one hand but then use the same logic when it's being held to account by saying "yeah but that's just the working group" ... also is no-one that's on the working group running for election? that's double standards.

One small correction to my original comment that you quoted - I did in fact get an email from them, but it was just an initial email acknowledgement saying something along the lines of they would look at it and "be in touch" ... it's the reply after that with the proper response that wasn't forthcoming, the follow-up. Just to be clear.

3) You might consider it a broad allegation but it's completely justified and with merit. It's been done to death a million times in the boardroom section with responses on either side and going round in circles.

My own personal, informed and reasoned opinion is that it's in no way independent of the club.

Expand a bit for me on how the decision making proccess is independent (I'm not saying it's not - I'm just asking)

Who decides what get's proposed and what get's brought to the table to vote on for all the members to ratify? this working group?

4) Again, I relayed the facts that are known to me, gave my opinion and also my own personal insight and predictions for it. It was ultimately upto them what to do.

I'd never tell anyone how to spend their money (the same way I take serious issue at anyone telling me to boycott season tickets last season and merchandise this season - it's a two-way street that) but there's no difference to me giving someone my insight on the group on Sunday there and people who are for the group giving them their insight and they can make their own mind up - that's what happened originally when the Rangers First people convinced them way back ... I only did the same thing on Sunday with my own input and opinions and they seemed to agree.

1. £1M ringfenced for share aquisition is a benefit to the support and members having control over they shares is a benefit.

I honestly think your focus on individuals is not an accurate representation of the org.  The money is not in question.  This 'cosy with' stuff I think is part of the perception problem some have.  I'll happily sit with any Rangers fan and discuss anything with them as long as there is a degree of respect with each other - the only arguments I personally have had with bears is over deliberate misrepresentation of facts - I'm fine with various opinions though I obviously have self belief in my own opinon.

2. Again I don't know the details and haven't been involved with the hampden stuff - but regarding waiting for the board to be in place I do not think thats a cop out.  The working group is being disbanded and the board will be there from next week.  I would re-send in your issues with the new board in place and maybe you'll get a more satisfactory solution 

3. Simple the key decisions are made by members and the things put to members require a majority agreement from the board.  From being on the working group for a period there was no pressure from the club for any decision whilst I was there.

4.  I believe wholly that 1872 can be a great thing for the support and its our responsibility as members to ensure that - The board we are electing is accountable to us - I would rather people tried to mold it than give up but its their money and they can use it at their discrection.

 

At the end of the day this to me is about way more than personalities and whos mates with who and reducing it to that misses the point - hopefully 1872 can prove me right

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, Louden_Greg said:

1. £1M ringfenced for share aquisition is a benefit to the support and members having control over they shares is a benefit.

I honestly think your focus on individuals is not an accurate representation of the org.  The money is not in question.  This 'cosy with' stuff I think is part of the perception problem some have.  I'll happily sit with any Rangers fan and discuss anything with them as long as there is a degree of respect with each other - the only arguments I personally have had with bears is over deliberate misrepresentation of facts - I'm fine with various opinions though I obviously have self belief in my own opinon.

2. Again I don't know the details and haven't been involved with the hampden stuff - but regarding waiting for the board to be in place I do not think thats a cop out.  The working group is being disbanded and the board will be there from next week.  I would re-send in your issues with the new board in place and maybe you'll get a more satisfactory solution 

3. Simple the key decisions are made by members and the things put to members require a majority agreement from the board.  From being on the working group for a period there was no pressure from the club for any decision whilst I was there.

4.  I believe wholly that 1872 can be a great thing for the support and its our responsibility as members to ensure that - The board we are electing is accountable to us - I would rather people tried to mold it than give up but its their money and they can use it at their discrection.

 

At the end of the day this to me is about way more than personalities and whos mates with who and reducing it to that misses the point - hopefully 1872 can prove me right

Again mate, I could go through they 4 bullet-points & address them with an alternative point of view and again you would reply to my 4 replies and we will keep going round and it will end up disintigrating into an argument - I've seen it too many times in the boardroom section from people who I think come across as decent people on both sides.

I'm not doing that. I've outlined in great detail my issues in the 4 points and nothing that's been said above or elsewhere has made me think I've got it wrong.

I have no issue with you and a couple of others promoting this but I will always have trust issues until I am proved wrong.

It's upto Club1872 to do it and win me over, but the worst thing they can do is attempt to bullshit and bluster me like they have done first of all regarding the merger that they said would never happen and then again saying they are independent of the club when they clearly aren't (no matter what you say to me)

[Louden_Greg 827]

54 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Again mate, I could go through they 4 bullet-points & address them with an alternative point of view and again you would reply to my 4 replies and we will keep going round and it will end up disintigrating into an argument - I've seen it too many times in the boardroom section from people who I think come across as decent people on both sides.

I'm not doing that. I've outlined in great detail my issues in the 4 points and nothing that's been said above or elsewhere has made me think I've got it wrong.

I have no issue with you and a couple of others promoting this but I will always have trust issues until I am proved wrong.

It's upto Club1872 to do it and win me over, but the worst thing they can do is attempt to bullshit and bluster me like they have done first of all regarding the merger that they said would never happen and then again saying they are independent of the club when they clearly aren't (no matter what you say to me)

Fair enough mate (I agree re the back and forth), opposing views don't need to come to a consensus to respect each others opinions

 

We both agree its up to 1872 to prove to the support their worth!

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, Louden_Greg said:

Fair enough mate (I agree re the back and forth), opposing views don't need to come to a consensus to respect each others opinions

 

We both agree its up to 1872 to prove to the support their worth!

Perfect mate

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

1 hour ago, Blue Avenger said:

Par for the course for PQ. I'm wondering if king has king hired him as a private dick? He couldn't put an argument up for shit, so let's try and demonise a poster for presenting the facts. The same with the whole king fan boy club. Their heads are so far up king's erse, they can't breath, far less think for themselves.

The snake is more to be pitied than scorned. I feel his pain. 

I don't know if they fell for the bullshit and lies or not but they carried out their masters bidding to a tee and the worst of them will never admit they got it wrong.

In effect, their actions are harming the club.

I know its so ironic that their M.O. for defending the board is to throw accusations around and comparisons to Ill Phil et all, but in my book, anyone who thinks the boards broken promises, lies and failures shouldn't be questioned is no better than a taig.

[Pure_Quality 3,295]

2 hours ago, BloodRunsBlue said:

 

Every single message you have highlighted in the above

link says "no credit line from a bank".

BA said   "no credit line at any bank".

It's not the same terminology at all.

 

You're a Dave King fan

You're a fan of Dave King

Close but different.

No surprise though to see you try to quell any dissent of the board by deflection and bullshit underhand accusations.

When a guy continually uses the same terminology, not phraseology - there's a difference, as known Rangers haters then I'll continually point it out.

The guys on Twitter who continually point out about the lack of credit lines, however they phrase it, are certainly no friends of Rangers and in fact actively try to do us harm. When, supposedly, one of our own continually peddles the same rhetoric I'm not going to sit around and let it pass and I hope any bear would do the same.

If pointing that out somehow, bizzarely, makes people angry then unfortunately so be it 

[thehost 11,061]

9 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said:

When a guy continually uses the same terminology, not phraseology - there's a difference, as known Rangers haters then I'll continually point it out.

The guys on Twitter who continually point out about the lack of credit lines, however they phrase it, are certainly no friends of Rangers and in fact actively try to do us harm. When, supposedly, one of our own continually peddles the same rhetoric I'm not going to sit around and let it pass and I hope any bear would do the same.

If pointing that out somehow, bizzarely, makes people angry then unfortunately so be it 

pointing out that we have no credit line, or not pointing out that we have no credit line makes not a blind bit of difference to the actuality that we have no credit line

 

what am I missing?

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

3 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said:

When a guy continually uses the same terminology, not phraseology - there's a difference, as known Rangers haters then I'll continually point it out.

The guys on Twitter who continually point out about the lack of credit lines, however they phrase it, are certainly no friends of Rangers and in fact actively try to do us harm. When, supposedly, one of our own continually peddles the same rhetoric I'm not going to sit around and let it pass and I hope any bear would do the same.

If pointing that out somehow, bizzarely, makes people angry then unfortunately so be it 

All you did was blindly back the board again, against solid facts. Blue Avengers post was 100% factual, and your reaction was to do what you and your ilk always do, roll out the taig accusations.

Try backing the club for a change, regardless of the pain you feel.

We deserve better than the liars and swindlers currently in control at Ibrox. Those online taigs you keep on about are doing no more than what is expected of online taigs. King and his board however are failing miserably and leading the club straight back to where we just came from.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 minutes ago, thehost said:

pointing out that we have no credit line, or not pointing out that we have no credit line makes not a blind bit of difference to the actuality that we have no credit line

 

what am I missing?

Beat me to it. 

We don't have a fucking credit line with any bank. 

That must make me a taig. 

Mind you after the 1872 vote RIFC do have a credit line.  

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

No bank will give us any credit.

Right, I'm off to mass

[Pure_Quality 3,295]

1 minute ago, BloodRunsBlue said:

All you did was blindly back the board again, against solid facts. Blue Avengers post was 100% factual, and your reaction was to do what you and your ilk always do, roll out the taig accusations.

Try backing the club for a change, regardless of the pain you feel.

We deserve better than the liars and swindlers currently in control at Ibrox. Those online taigs you keep on about are doing no more than what is expected of online taigs. King and his board however are failing miserably and leading the club straight back to where we just came from.

You've just made that up!

I'm off to watch the Ryder Cup but when BA next trots out lines used by taigs I'll next pull him up on it.

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

4 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said:

You've just made that up!

I'm off to watch the Ryder Cup but when BA next trots out lines used by taigs I'll next pull him up on it.

There you go again, ignoring facts. As you know, it wasn't the same line.

Maybe admin needs a word with you about continuously posting such shite on here and maybe you should stick to watching golf.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

38 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said:

When a guy continually uses the same terminology, not phraseology - there's a difference, as known Rangers haters then I'll continually point it out.

The guys on Twitter who continually point out about the lack of credit lines, however they phrase it, are certainly no friends of Rangers and in fact actively try to do us harm. When, supposedly, one of our own continually peddles the same rhetoric I'm not going to sit around and let it pass and I hope any bear would do the same.

If pointing that out somehow, bizzarely, makes people angry then unfortunately so be it 

Let's get real here Inspector Clouseau. I post facts that you don't like. I don't like king. I make no apology for it and make no secret of it, but I don't go throwing around taig allegations because someone has just posted a suck up to king's erse.

This man has a conviction record of multiple corporate malfeasance and he is in charge of one of Scotland's greatest institutions, which has been raped and pillaged over the recent past. Now it may make sense to you and your ilk to have such a convicted individual at the helm, but for many who actually have principles, do not on a point of principle and can actually see through the bullshit and his record thus far is, that the leopard does not change it's spots.  

Your allegations and innuendo are a disgrace.

You obviously spend an inordinate amount of with these haters, to the point of obsession when you try and actually quote and as pointed out, incorrectly as to their diatribe. Therein lies the difference, I do not, unless they are quoted on here and why the fuck anyone would want to visit them, says more about them than the actual haters.

If you desire any kind of credibility, then grow up and try and debate the points raised.

Until such times, you remain a disgrace in my eyes and lower than the snakes belly that you are.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

25 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said:

You've just made that up!

I'm off to watch the Ryder Cup but when BA next trots out lines used by taigs I'll next pull him up on it.

You obviously don't do mirrors, big man!

[The Ibrox Derry 8,904]

I really couldn't give 2 fucks about these fan groups, full of egotistical Fannies by the sounds of it.

[RDFM 3,809]

20 hours ago, ForeverAndEver said:

What is it with our club and successful people? We seem to want to chase them away. Whatever your opinion on Sarver or Ashley not one single person can deny they’re both very successful, self-made, professional, rich, business men. Seems in recent years a section of support, who wanted no one other than our current board, have tried their hardest to scare away success stories. Much the same as the Club 1872 board elections. Rather than actually choose those who may give us the most it’s another case of jobs for the minions. Those same people who played some part in rubbishing billionaires are attempting to tarnish successful individuals offering their free time to Club 1872. Let there be no misunderstanding here. If certain individuals get onto that board it proves what an absolute fit up this has been from start to finish. Not only that but, as we’ve already seen, numbers will diminish, no one will want involved and the scheme will fail. In fact at this rate I predict it won’t even be around in 5 years. Nor will most of those currently associated it. Those individuals for whom ego and publicity are way more important than club. Is it any coincidence that those smeared or dismissed, by the usual crowd, are Rangers First individuals? Welcome to the Rangers Supporters Trust Mark 2!

The supporters’ vehicle which faded away as the majority of fans couldn’t stand those involved. It was not by chance that Rangers First eclipsed them almost instantly in members, finance and shareholding. Like everything it happened for a reason and that reason was the common denominator. The merger of RST and RF saw a reasonable number of fans join into Club 1872. That figure has more than halved at this stage and will diminish further as time goes on. The aggressive, unprofessional and distasteful manner in which some candidates have been treated comes not only from the usual suspects but also from the Working Party themselves. At no point is it okay for an unelected crowd of sycophants to smear other Rangers fans. Especially not those offering help and experience for free.

At no time will Club 1872 have anywhere near the target of 50000 members. At no time will they achieve a shareholding of 25%. It’s been a doomed project ever since the merger and unnamed, super-secret, working party were in situ. Let’s not forget that the website for Club 1872 was planned and built prior to any merger vote. Whatever happened, due to its unpopularity, RST were getting rebranded. Most would suggest the personnel needed removed rather than a simple name change. Same folk there same shite happening.

Here’s a little scenario for you all to ponder over. The “independent” (LMFAO) Club 1872, with James Blair as a board member, have a legal dispute with the club, who also have James Blair as secretary and his firm as legal representatives, what happens then? No conflict of interest is there? Nothing to see here move along! There also seems to be some strange goings on regarding the registration of 2 members of the Rangers First board. One being the no show Richard Gough.

We also have Craig Houston of whom, if this quote is anything to go by, feels the board are more important than club history. Hardly smacks of independence;

“I said before that I thought the AGM result was a bigger victory for the club in importance than nine-in-a-row. That was a massive day.”

What part of that is not made by an individual awe struck by those in charge? Even today Craig is banging the drum on Twitter in support of Dave King & the board. We’re trying to be independent of them not have a “Yes” man aboard a fan vehicle.

Finally we have our virtual representative, brought to us by modern technology, not by way of a visit to Ibrox, ever, Shane Nicholson. Closest he’s ever got was the picture on his wall which looked very new. Shane also had to be told who Davie Cooper was. There’s no problem with fans from overseas representing the club but at least let it be ones who know what a walk up the Copland Road feels like. It stinks to me that there has been a campaign by Mark Dingwall and Chris Graham to get this individual elected. I will reiterate that, not one of these people have ever met him in person, they’re friends from the internet. Last time I looked the internet was for buying rollerblades when drunk not pick an American stranger as fan representatives for our great club.

Seems to quite a few of us that the 1872 Working Party, Mark Dingwall and Chris Graham all want us to vote for certain people. The recent attacks on Brian Donohoe have illustrated that matter to most. Story goes that it was Brian who was responsible for the IPSO complaint regarding the Daily Record. Yet others want to claim the glory. Wasn’t that long ago Mark Dingwall proposed Chris Graham for the RFFF. When it came to asking about Rangers credentials, for Chris, not one person could provide any. He was, I’m told, also kicked out of the Vanguard Bears. Those lads always were a good judge of character. Despite being a great cartoonist he’s certainly been nothing but an embarrassment to himself, the club and the fans. Strangely enough the club have kept him hanging around. Nice to see him back on twitter attacking good Bears though. He just can’t help himself.

We have some sterling fans running for this board. People with a passion for the club, business acumen, good orators and willing to give up free time. However they’re not part of The Blue Pound Chasers, The Ego’s, Board Shills or favoured by a pub. The ones you’ve seen attacked and smeared on all forms of social media. Johnathon McGookin, Kelly Johnstone and Scott McCulloch are three standouts for me. Individuals with no loyalties other than The Rangers. No politics and unquestionable credentials when it comes to being fans. Three highly motivated individuals who will consistently give 100%

Going by general consensus no one’s really that interested anymore. If you are vote for who you want, who you think will do most for the club. Not because some Blue Pound Chaser told you too as it suits his agenda. Remember they’ve attacked certain people as they’re threats to the nepotism and egos of those that caused a divide. Unless we get new blood into this organisation it’s failed. Perhaps we should just leave them to it? They’ll destroy it quicker by themselves and we can move on minus the shite. I know if certain individuals are elected my membership will be cancelled.

Again many thanks to all those Bears who help with research & words of wisdom.

God Bless Our Team

I'll be honest I only read the first two lines but while Sarver has good net worth he's infamous for being exceedingly cheap in the running of the Phoenix Suns, even costing them their first championship due to it. Not saying he'd have been bad for us or good for us and not comparing him with King either but I don't think he'd have been our best bet.