Jump to content

Dave king statement


KWBear

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, gj923 said:

What would they be taken to court for? For appointing an chairman to the SPFL of which our MD is on the board who then took up another board position (he has about 5 or 6) which was widely reported in the press in March of which certain shareholders also have shares in another SPL football team. What exactly would be the action that was raised?

Conflict of interest. You listen to much to the lies of Doncaster if you believe there isn’t one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gj923 said:

What would they be taken to court for? For appointing an chairman to the SPFL of which our MD is on the board who then took up another board position (he has about 5 or 6) which was widely reported in the press in March of which certain shareholders also have shares in another SPL football team. What exactly would be the action that was raised?

Treason? 

Aggravated taigery?

practising of unlicensed witchcraft in a blue zone ?

fuck knows what action should be raised but King as called for an independent investigation by a QC and the response has been “nah fuck off” so what is the next step? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Skyson1872 said:

Trying their hardest to portray it as a minority shareholding :lol: Together they own 45% of the media company and have the biggest share holdings in both them and the filth. 

Even the bbc are calling Desmond a major shareholder in inm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Bakbear said:

Treason? 

Aggravated taigery?

practising of unlicensed witchcraft in a blue zone ?

fuck knows what action should be raised but King as called for an independent investigation by a QC and the response has been “nah fuck off” so what is the next step? 

 

probably another statement alleging something else from King

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gj923 said:

probably another statement alleging something else from King

He has committed himself on this. A highly public spat on a very specific subject. He can’t just let it lie now and he equally can’t issue another statement. It clearly will achieve nothing. The next step has to be action of some kind 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bakbear said:

Thank fuck they responded, I was ready to throw ma phone in the bath if I had to read anymore “Rangers, The Rangers” pish. Although it’s proof positive that as a support we will never be united long enough to ever take this shower of fucking  crooks to task 

Anyway. The response once again simply attempts to dismiss Kings complaints as puerile nonsense. King must have taken a legal opinion before now so time to challenge this in a court of law or back off

The response... or just response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bakbear said:

Treason? 

Aggravated taigery?

practising of unlicensed witchcraft in a blue zone ?

fuck knows what action should be raised but King as called for an independent investigation by a QC and the response has been “nah fuck off” so what is the next step? 

 

Take it to UEFA FIFA or CAS. 

With any of them involved they can't keep it in Scotland where they can bury it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, backup said:

The biggest danger to The Rangers is the narcicistic meglomaniac sitting in the Chairman’s chair, I also see we don’t have any Mark Twain fans only english ones.

Does no one read anything other than kings puff pieces ?

FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO.

fMNpZE.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

New company name is RIFC (Rangers International Football Club Ltd) So Idiotup must think we died  

 

The Rangers International Football Club PLC is a holding company.
The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the operating company (or owner).
The Club (Rangers Football Club) is owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club LTD, which, in turn, is a subsidiary of The Rangers International Football Club PLC

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skyson1872 said:

Trying their hardest to portray it as a minority shareholding :lol: Together they own 45% of the media company and have the biggest share holdings in both them and the filth. 

And they are claiming minority shareholders ?

Absolutely corrupt to the core. King better have something else up his sleeve. Action is needed not just statements 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SPFL are playing semantic silly buggers here. They are basing their argument on the differences between major shareholder and majority shareholder.

Odd how they don't consider a 29% shareholding in a company as having an influence in this case but they consider a 10% shareholding as having an influence when considering dual ownership of clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/inm-should-be-run-for-denis-o-brien-and-dermot-desmond-1.3463823%3Fmode=amp

 

“In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board. 

“Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.”

Their SPFL patsy might be in there for their interests in INM also, there’s a current court case against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TheMotor said:

SPFL are playing semantic silly buggers here. They are basing their argument on the differences between major shareholder and majority shareholder.

Odd how they don't consider a 29% shareholding in a company as having an influence in this case but they consider a 10% shareholding as having an influence when considering dual ownership of clubs.

Totally agree however unless I am wrong it’s irrelevant. The rule is the rule whether majority or major (?)

Its a smoke screen of an irrelevant argument.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pure_Quality said:

FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO.

fMNpZE.png

The real ? is what sort of person would go to the extent of forging something like that what are they afraid of, some idiot that doesn't understand the calendar obviously and  certainly no friend to The Rangers as far as I am concerned

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they're not majority shareholders. They're the LARGEST shareholders, by a massive distance, and therefore by some distance the most influential people in the two companies. 

Apart from anything, we (as in we fans) need to get our language right on this so they can't wriggle too much.

But anyway, the SPFL statement seems ridiculous to me. Splitting hairs and squirming around with semantics and being wilfully obtuse as far as I can see. The denial of a conflict of interests is flabbergasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...