sonofbear 398 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said: Indeed. The only thing that would define if 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.... Lifted from FF "O’Brien controls more than 29 per cent of INM, while Desmond has around 15 per cent. They are the two largest shareholders with the third being UBS with around 6%" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said: 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 dave's various starring roles in courts and his record of failure in these courts does it for me, facts over journos every day of the week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,123 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 Unfortunately King is isolated in his protest, he needs backing from other clubs and that’s never going to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robmc1 4,741 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 3 hours ago, eejay the dj said: I think there must be clubs like Hearts, Aberdeen and few others looking in here and thinking they need to change their old attitude . Look where that has got them . I'm certain DK would have been sounding them out over last few years , maybe canvassing for some support I’d like to think so but it’s probably unlikely, helping Rangers manuevre in to a position of strength diminishes their own chance of any success, be that cup or league position. They know that either side of the old firm will always dominate and our current issues keep it in their interest to keep thinks difficult for us even at the expense of no credible challenge to celtic. Sad state of affairs... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
big blue Fin 3,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 So king has made a statement with regard to the dodgy dealings in Scottish football. Part of me can't help thinking pot/kettle and another part thinking it'll do as much good as farting in a thunderstorm. Scottish football is corrupt, the taigs have coloured it green and white and cut it to suit their needs and no one elses. Their is as much chance of their being an I dependent investigation as there is of the Lego muncher being sent off next season as often as Ryan Jack was this last season. However it may be a good sign, perhaps dodgy dave is starting to come to terms to the fact that we are Rangers and no one likes us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, backup said: dave's various starring roles in courts and his record of failure in these courts does it for me, facts over journos every day of the week. So the fact he has started a wider conversation about the governance (or lack thereof) in Scottish football - how it appears to be dominated by one particular football club - is of no consequence because of your personal distaste for King ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 Just now, D'Artagnan said: So the fact he has started a wider conversation about the governance (or lack thereof) in Scottish football - how it appears to be dominated by one particular football club - is of no consequence because of your personal distaste for King ? No, he has no case, simple as that, somewhat along the lines of SD gonna get a whipping in court and dave/murray won, only the accs showed the breadth of his delusion and the fact that the "win" was a £3 million cost. Hang on his every word if you like, I won't be doing that, guy is a serial charlatan who has put us in a worse financial position than when he conned his way in, with more to come. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 Just now, backup said: No, he has no case, simple as that, somewhat along the lines of SD gonna get a whipping in court and dave/murray won, only the accs showed the breadth of his delusion and the fact that the "win" was a £3 million cost. Hang on his every word if you like, I won't be doing that, guy is a serial charlatan who has put us in a worse financial position than when he conned his way in, with more to come. Who said he had a case ? As per John Gow's tweet - he is merely shining some light into a very murky room and opening some eyes. Your need to pigeon hole fellow supporters (As I certainly dont "Hang on his every word") for seeing the positives in a particular course of action is self defeating Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said: Who said he had a case ? As per John Gow's tweet - he is merely shining some light into a very murky room and opening some eyes. Your need to pigeon hole fellow supporters (As I certainly dont "Hang on his every word") for seeing the positives in a particular course of action is self defeating He did. The SPFL, therefore, must immediately suspend its Chairman pending an independent investigation by a senior QC into the allegations and into the extent that other parties within the SPFL may have cooperated in this alleged non-disclosure. There is a clear prima facie case for this investigation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, backup said: He did. The SPFL, therefore, must immediately suspend its Chairman pending an independent investigation by a senior QC into the allegations and into the extent that other parties within the SPFL may have cooperated in this alleged non-disclosure. There is a clear prima facie case for this investigation. He maybe did - but we dont have to agree with that. I happen to disagree with quite a lot DK says. But I wont allow that to blind me to the wider positives in any course of action undertaken on behalf of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Bears r us said: The problem I see is if we do not respond to the statement from the spfl soon then it will just be forgot about in a few days. I hope we have a move to counter their attempt to put it to bed. The chip chip is a good way of starting this, it’s what the taigs did to start with. Little pointers put out there and before you know it everyone is starting to notice a pattern of what is going on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said: The chip chip is a good way of starting this, it’s what the taigs did to start with. Little pointers put out there and before you know it everyone is starting to notice a pattern of what is going on. Im willing to bet that flowchart (SFA WEB of Corruption) which was doing the rounds a while back will make a re-appearace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 Just now, D'Artagnan said: He maybe did - but we dont have to agree with that. I happen to disagree with quite a lot DK says. But I wont allow that to blind me to the wider positives in any course of action undertaken on behalf of the club. No maybe about it. Just to be clear, the old adage about not interrupting your enemy while they are making a mistake sprung immediately to mind on reading king's statement. If he is so certain as to a prima facie case, he should have lined up all his ducks and gone straight for Judicial review cutting out the normal court process,, by forewarning the spfl he lost any initiative he may have had, if any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vision 16,725 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 They drew first blood, not me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, backup said: No maybe about it. Just to be clear, the old adage about not interrupting your enemy while they are making a mistake sprung immediately to mind on reading king's statement. If he is so certain as to a prima facie case, he should have lined up all his ducks and gone straight for Judicial review cutting out the normal court process,, by forewarning the spfl he lost any initiative he may have had, if any. As I said earlier I tend to agree with the summation that King knew he would not get any kind of enquiry or investigation - whether he cited there was a prima facie or not. Its started a conversation - whether that was his intention or he was actually serious I cannot say - Im just glad, to quote @Courtyard Bear that we have started chipping away at a wall of corruption in favour of one club - which we all know exists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,600 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 If its the start of a fightback I'm all for it we have been run by cowards who have let us be walked over in every department and I include this board in this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 1 minute ago, D'Artagnan said: As I said earlier I tend to agree with the summation that King knew he would not get any kind of enquiry or investigation - whether he cited there was a prima facie or not. Its started a conversation - whether that was his intention or he was actually serious I cannot say - Im just glad, to quote @Courtyard Bear that we have started chipping away at a wall of corruption in favour of one club - which we all know exists. He needs to back up his statement, many are expecting him to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKnight87 17,281 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said: As I said earlier I tend to agree with the summation that King knew he would not get any kind of enquiry or investigation - whether he cited there was a prima facie or not. Its started a conversation - whether that was his intention or he was actually serious I cannot say - Im just glad, to quote @Courtyard Bear that we have started chipping away at a wall of corruption in favour of one club - which we all know exists. I'm happy we have started to make a stand and taking aim at the corruption within the SPFL. King as you said knew that an investigation was not forthcoming. He now needs to back up his statement with actions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, sonofbear said: Lifted from FF "O’Brien controls more than 29 per cent of INM, while Desmond has around 15 per cent. They are the two largest shareholders with the third being UBS with around 6%" Cheers. So if Desmond, majority shareholder at scum fc, bought only 8% of O'Briens INM share holding it would be a conflict of interest but as it stands it's not ?. Only the authorities in the republic of scotland could come out with that as justification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said: Cheers. So if Desmond, majority shareholder at scum fc, bought only 8% of O'Briens share holding it would be a conflict of interest but as it stands it's not ?. Only the authorities in the republic of scotland could come out with that as justification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMB 14,167 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, backup said: No, he has no case, simple as that, somewhat along the lines of SD gonna get a whipping in court and dave/murray won, only the accs showed the breadth of his delusion and the fact that the "win" was a £3 million cost. Hang on his every word if you like, I won't be doing that, guy is a serial charlatan who has put us in a worse financial position than when he conned his way in, with more to come. A guy currently on the board of the SFA referred to Rangers fans as "the great unwashed". I think Dave is right to question the impartiality of the governing body especially when a few of them have obvious leanings towards celtic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said: Which CFC director owns INM? Obrien isn't a celtic director I don't think, and Desmond isn't majority shareholder in INM.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 9 minutes ago, TMB said: A guy currently on the board of the SFA referred to Rangers fans as "the great unwashed". I think Dave is right to question the impartiality of the governing body especially when a few of them have obvious leanings towards celtic. Of course he has the right and he has done so, what he shouldn't be doing is issuing fluff pieces as alleged statements and then failing to back them up as he appears to have done again here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbear 398 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said: Which CFC director owns INM? Obrien isn't a celtic director I don't think, and Desmond isn't majority shareholder in INM.... The same Obrian who owns 2.82 % of the bheasts ?? (I don't know) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMB 14,167 Posted May 30, 2018 Share Posted May 30, 2018 1 minute ago, backup said: Of course he has the right and he has done so, what he shouldn't be doing is issuing fluff pieces as alleged statements and then failing to back them up as he appears to have done again here. It's not "fluff". Dave King is publicly bringing in to question to impartiality of the SFA which has no doubt damaged the reputation and integrity of that organisation. The SFA have just launched this 'revised Notice of Complaint relating to the monitoring period subsequent to the grant of the UEFA licence' which means they're still targeting this football club and may continue to do so in to the future. That needs to stop. Rangers, rather than constantly sit back on the defensive, must go on the attack and as far as I'm concerned they've done that. Rangers must paint the picture of a governing body, who is neither objective or impartial, out to get one of its member clubs due to the personal prejudices of its board members. It's fighting dirty in the court of public opinion but why not take this approach? Haven't others been damaging the reputation and integrity of the football club in full view of the public for years now? If shit slinging is the game then I'm all for the club getting its hands dirty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.