Jump to content
KWBear

Dave king statement

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

There is an argument for very publicly stirring the hornets nest before going down the costly legal route I'd have thought...

What argument, being very publicly slapped down by the spfl ?

If dave or any of his board are at all clever in the slightest, they and he would have kept quiet and investigated the possibility of Judicial review, SR having full knowledge of what had occurred previously is not in any way good at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, D'Artagnan said:

Im not so sure it is just flying a kite for the easily led.

I tend to agree with this tweet from John Gow yesterday as to the true motivation.

Screenshot(26).thumb.png.f8b65e57d3f09a51dc2bc68b286c102c.png

I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, backup said:

What argument, being very publicly slapped down by the spfl ?

If dave or any of his board are at all clever in the slightest, they and he would have kept quiet and investigated the possibility of Judicial review, SR having full knowledge of what had occurred previously is not in any way good at all.

The argument that this is financially better right now at raising the issue publicly rather than recruiting costly legal professionals.

The SPFL have responded, as is their right, but I don't see it as puting us in our box. More deflection and trying to bluster their way through it all.

SR may be more part of our problem than solution dependent on what exactly was disclosed at the SPFL meeting where the appointment was announced.

But regardless, the judicial review can still be pursued, nothing that's happened now prevents that or has worsened our position by DKs actions here imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

The argument that this is financially better right now at raising the issue publicly rather than recruiting costly legal professionals.

The SPFL have responded, as is their right, but I don't see it as puting us in our box. More deflection and trying to bluster their way through it all.

SR may be more part of our problem than solution dependent on what exactly was disclosed at the SPFL meeting where the appointment was announced.

But regardless, the judicial review can still be pursued, nothing that's happened now prevents that or has worsened our position by DKs actions here imo.

We have a very costly legal chap on the spfl board, how did that work out.

This particular kite of dave’s failed to get airborne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, backup said:

We have a very costly legal chap on the spfl board, how did that work out.

This particular kite of dave’s failed to get airborne.

I'll give it a little more time for the wind to pick up then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

I think the key point the spfl are trying to portray is that Desmond is not the majority shareholder in INM though he is in the scum. Which makes it ok as not the major shareholder ?

So it's actually like saying a company where club 1872 is major shareholder, King is 2nd largest shareholder, it would be ok for the current spfl to be a chairman of ??

Or something like that based on the structure below

 

It doesn't surprise me that the SPFL would put out a flimsy argument like this.

So because Desmond doesn't fully own INM it's ok for Maclennan to work for company.

You can't make it up lol.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, backup said:

I am.

Nobodys fooled by you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheMotor said:

What it clearly does not address is whether they had all been made aware of his history of association with celtic or his current working association with the majority shareholder in that club.

I would also like to hear them justify or clarify the part of the statement where they claim he was an obvious candidate for the role of Chairman of a football league organisation based on his history  as Vice-Chairman of a media group. The only standout link between the two roles is Dermot Desmond.

Very good points mate.

It looks like the SPFL plan is to try and sweep it under the carpet and hope it's forgotten about in a few days.

This is where we have to hope King has something else in the works. A statement is good but there needs to be more action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueKnight87 said:

It doesn't surprise me that the SPFL would put out a flimsy argument like this.

So because Desmond doesn't fully own INM it's ok for Maclennan to work for company.

You can't make it up lol.

If it's that flimsy dave will demolish it forthwith ! there again there is the boy who cried wolf and then there is dave, seems many haven't heeded the lessons of dave's history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheMotor said:

 

Sorry for quoting two long posts but they both cover the point of how the SPFL response is actually a non-response to the issue.

The SPFL statement highlights the fact that the SPFL board were made aware of the appointment on the day it happened and the full board rubber-stamped it. That is not the issue.

What it clearly does not address is whether they had all been made aware of his history of association with celtic or his current working association with the majority shareholder in that club.

I would also like to hear them justify or clarify the part of the statement where they claim he was an obvious candidate for the role of Chairman of a football league organisation based on his history  as Vice-Chairman of a media group. The only standout link between the two roles is Dermot Desmond.

And Denis O'Brien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a non biased English press involved, could D King be waiting till Friday to include any impending court action with our new managers first day.

The last thing the fenian Scottish football govern bodies want is a court case, a chairman writing off players getting attacked on the pitch to exuberance , a football association from one side of the border working with HMRC to get a resolution to ebt's and the other side using it as a stick to punish just one club that used it etcetera etcetera. This is all things that could be used to prove there is indeed a conflict of interests in Scottish football and one or two clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, backup said:

If it's that flimsy dave will demolish it forthwith ! there again there is the boy who cried wolf and then there is dave, seems many haven't heeded the lessons of dave's history.

As a long term King critic, specifically over his lack of action in defending us our attacking our enemies, it would be entirely hypocritical to not acknowledge and yes applaud this action.

Take each incident on it's own merits whilst retaining a wider overview is a sensible approach. Default criticism or praise regardless of the matter at hand serves no good to anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, backup said:

I am.

But then you seem to be the most negative person on this site.

Things that make you go hmmmmm......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueKnight87 said:

It doesn't surprise me that the SPFL would put out a flimsy argument like this.

So because Desmond doesn't fully own INM it's ok for Maclennan to work for company.

You can't make it up lol.

It's the paedo argument all over again celtic boys club isn't part of celtic.  sweep sweep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

As a long term King critic, specifically over his lack of action in defending us our attacking our enemies, it would be entirely hypocritical to not acknowledge and yes applaud this action.

Take each incident on it's own merits whilst retaining a wider overview is a sensible approach. Default criticism or praise regardless of the matter at hand serves no good to anyone.

king  notwithstanding SG serves us no good as he constantly proves, there is more to come, of that be in no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bertent said:

But then you seem to be the most negative person on this site.

Things that make you go hmmmmm......

I have no interest in what makes you go hmmmmmm, facts interest me where The Rangers are concerned, that you cling to the perceived heroics of a glib and shameless liar is of course your prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

aye when you see it as stark as that, its ridiculous really.

Indeed.

The only thing that would define it more is some kind soul searching the most recent accounts for shareholding % in both organisations for both men. I'm interested to see what % DD is behind DoB (how ironic initials can be ?) to illustrate the fine margins between what is / is not conflict in the eyes of the SPFL. 

Anyone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very happy that Rangers have done this.  It calls in to question the impartiality of the SFA and it's board members.  The club are no longer sitting back and have decided to go on the attack which can only be a good thing.

In Chess, the best move can sometimes be the one your opponent doesn't want you to make.  I'm certain the SFA doesn't want Rangers calling in to question their ability to be impartial and calling for some to be sacked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, backup said:

king  notwithstanding SG serves us no good as he constantly proves, there is more to come, of that be in no doubt.

On the whole I agree but the only way he can prove me wrong about him is to get in a successful manager and finance him to get a league winning team on the park. These small battles are there to be won and can influence opinion, but the reality is that he must deliver on priorities and make us successful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, backup said:

I am.

Which is your prerogative.

Im happier to gauge the cause & effect bassed on the comments of more balanced journos & not the responses of Lawell's succulent lambs in the Scottish media

Screenshot(27).thumb.png.0ea1aea39c2e1757b3d3132034d94197.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×