The Seppuku of an internet blogger

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I suppose this is blogger's equivalent of the Samurai tradition of Seppuku – their unique suicide rite. At journalism college one of my course tutor's used to invariably preach about the successful narrator knowing, and writing to the very heart and soul of their audience. This article will do quite the opposite and some may find the content uncomfortable, however I feel it asks a question which needs to be asked.

The boardroom battle for control of our club has seen a thorough examination of the character and integrity (or alleged lack thereof) of the various candidates vying for control. It would be fair to say the Rangers support is well versed in the personal character strengths and weaknesses of the Murrays, the Easdales etc. The apparent weaknesses of the “other sides” candidates have been given maximum exposure during the ensuing debate, with the morality factor at times appearing as important as the size of the wallet they, or their backers, bring to our club. All is fair in love and war.

Waiting in the wings is a man many Rangers fans would view as our club's “Messiah” - Dave King. Almost as important as his money appears to be his ability to unite the fragmented factions within our support for he appears to have the unanimous backing of all. Perhaps the eventual winner in our boardroom battle will determined by which side, if any, Dave King decides to ally with.

Such unanimous support for King has spared him the moral examination so many others have been subjected to in our boardroom struggle. With the exception of course of the Scottish Press. Let me make one thing clear – the Scottish Press have long surrendered the right to exercise moral judgement with regard to our club. They surrendered such a right long ago with their silence over 5 way agreements, their silence over unlawful transfer embargo's imposed on our club and their desire to join with the haters in labelling us “cheats”and thus trampling over our right to a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

This discussion is by invitation only, and those out with the Rangers support are not invited, cordially or otherwise. But it is nonetheless, a discussion which has to be had.

Judge Southwoods assessment of Dave King in his tax battle with the South African authorities was damning. I'm sure most of you have read it, but to spare you the false morality of the Scottish press it can be found here :

http://www.moneywebt...56208&sn=Detail

Are we satisfied as a support that the coat bearing glib and shameless will be discarded should Dave King return to Ibrox in any capacity ?

Will an alleged disrespect for the truth be at odds with a support demanding transparency and clarity with regard to the governance of our club ?

Or are the characteristics described by Judge Southwood exactly what are needed at our club in a battle where our enemies are not playing by the rules ?

These are difficult questions but we will need to wrestle with them at some point. Failure to do so is just not an option.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,700]

im not a huge fan of King its just Mike Ashley apart he is the best.of.a very bad bunch.

[A.T.G 10,773]

In a couple of years we will laugh about this boardroom scuffle

Wont we?

[hammer time 653]

In a couple of years we will laugh about this boardroom scuffle

Wont we?

would be nice to think so, maybe get back to talking about the football side of things

[theiconicman 3,127]

In a couple of years we will laugh about this boardroom scuffle

Wont we?

Assuming it is over by then, maybe.

[lancedeangers1 287]

A valid and brave offering D'artagnan .

However given the extreme circumstances of the club and the fact that we are crucified on a daily basis regardless of how innocent or guilty we are I can honestly say I no longer care about mr Kings previous misdemeanours.

Just yesterday we had another dig at the club from that smarmy bastard Liewells and to be honest I'm now absolutely sick of it. I'm tired of defending this club and it's support with hands bound by the restraints of morality.

If Dave King brings much needed stability and strength back to the club then that's what is important. He may well have pulled a few tax strokes, no different to the majority of businesses and as long as he rolls the dice straight at Rangers which given the scrutiny now I'm sure he will then that's good enough for me.

D'artagnan I believe you and the Vanguardbears group are exactly what our club and support needs. I would love to see an initiative put together that attempts to set up a business funded by Rangers fans and the club which on a salaried full time basis " defends the traditions" of our club and fans.

I know I am digressing but so many people I know are so livid and angry with being treated like dogs and there is no formidable or far reaching defence. We need to wake up and reassert ourselves and that means organising and amassing our resources and going on an all out offensive.

[Bertent 2,081]

I have been saying since the start of the year that these squabbles only ever benefited one party. Today we face the prospect of not only sleep walking but welcoming saviour like back into majority ownership by a man whos only differentiator in modus operandi from the ships former Titanic like captain is he is a Rangers fan.

That may be enough for some.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

A valid and brave offering D'artagnan .

However given the extreme circumstances of the club and the fact that we are crucified on a daily basis regardless of how innocent or guilty we are I can honestly say I no longer care about mr Kings previous misdemeanours.

Just yesterday we had another dig at the club from that smarmy bastard Liewells and to be honest I'm now absolutely sick of it. I'm tired of defending this club and it's support with hands bound by the restraints of morality.

If Dave King brings much needed stability and strength back to the club then that's what is important. He may well have pulled a few tax strokes, no different to the majority of businesses and as long as he rolls the dice straight at Rangers which given the scrutiny now I'm sure he will then that's good enough for me.

D'artagnan I believe you and the Vanguardbears group are exactly what our club and support needs. I would love to see an initiative put together that attempts to set up a business funded by Rangers fans and the club which on a salaried full time basis " defends the traditions" of our club and fans.

I know I am digressing but so many people I know are so livid and angry with being treated like dogs and there is no formidable or far reaching defence. We need to wake up and reassert ourselves and that means organising and amassing our resources and going on an all out offensive.

When I view the various factions placing their trust in (a) or (b) Lance I often think we are a bit like the biblical dogs bickering over the scraps from the masters table. When will they ever realise we have fully earned the right to sit at that table ourselves. And then some.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I have been saying since the start of the year that these squabbles only ever benefited one party. Today we face the prospect of not only sleep walking but welcoming saviour like back into majority ownership by a man whos only differentiator in modus operandi from the ships former Titanic like captain is he is a Rangers fan.

That may be enough for some.

By that one party do you mean DK Bert ?

[cushynumber 25,178]

Such unanimous support for King has spared him the moral examination so many others have been subjected to in our boardroom struggle

I completely disagree with that D'art. there are numerous threads over the last 18 months re DK and very many, many of the comments were damning of him due to his carry on with the tax man in SA and didn't want him anywhere near Ibrox due to that - me included. It was too close to the bone and too close to Whytes carry on with our own tax authorities.

Personally, I think that DKs deal cutting in SA is not the perfect way to conduct your business - particularly in the context of Rangers and the tax cases we had hanging over us. However, he has kept out of jail, has managed to keep his directorships etc, and being pragmatic, I think he is the only guy who has the money to shore us up. I am therefore prepared to forget his past indescretions and hope he has learned his lesson.

[elephants stoned 2,994]

I think Dave King is seen as a savior not through his own attributes of which there are a few but as the cast of this drama we are constantly watching are such poor candidates and we are deserate for someone, anyone who has a little backbone to help us out King is better suited for us than Murray P or M or Stockbridge and hes certainly much richer than the Easdales but we should be wary of putting DK on too high a pedestal for if we expect too much from him we may well find ourselves just as disappointed in him as we are now with everybody else.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I personally worry about the club being in any single owners hand - more so someone so far away and that is with out even worrying about his character! One premise I thought green had right was the 10% rule and what we need is the concept of a board putting the club first not an owner who has us as a play thing !

[gmcf 35,428]

' very confident ' ' not uncomfortable about giving evidence when cross examine '. ' well versed in the intricacies of the financial world ' ' arrogant and whatever he thinks , is so ' . Sounds like the kind of guy we need , cos let's face it D'Art , good guys win nothing - it's usually the determined , ruthless ones.

To get to your point tho - do I think about the moral aspect should DK come back to Ibrox - no I don't. The reality is this goes on in the business world and not just in DK's one. King obviously thought he had a case , even if he pushed it to the limits .

So how does this compare to the scrutiny of other candidates ? I think trying to reduce your tax affects us all and therefore there's a wee bit more of an understanding of that when you're up against the taxman. On the other hand , we' re not so understanding of someone that's supposed to represent us making an arse of himself drunk , another then recording it , and possibly a third one leaking it.

[saintbob1969 1,560]

The board or King or Blue Knights or whoever, no business man puts his own money into a business, especially when that business has guaranteed turnover and fans/customers who will pay and pay and pay regardless of the product quality.

We all need to realise that we are the saviour of Rangers and the mugs too. Stop looking for the cavalry riding over the hill. The last few years has taught us nothing if it has not taught us this.

[JCDBigBear 10,989]

Whilst we almost self-flagellate over the issue with Dave King, we should consider that the bad publicity fall-out appears only ever to land on our Club. The less-than-white dealings of directors and owners at other clubs barely gets a mention either from the media or their own fans. One need look no further than the despicable organisation at Parkhead. Desmond is hardly the epitome of good directorship neither was Reid. I'm sure if we look deep enough into their affairs then we would find more evidence of "shady" dealings. For instance, how many were involved with tax-dodge investments in "film production" companies which produced no films? Look at the dealings they have had in cahoots with the city council over land beside the San Giro. There are also unsavoury deals involving land beside their old training ground at Barrowfield and their new training area at Lennoxtown. The amounts paid for these two areas were derisory and should be subject to public enquiry.

King may not be the "whitest" of knights but neither are those in charge of our enemies.

I now feel the need to send off a number of letters on this subject.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Such unanimous support for King has spared him the moral examination so many others have been subjected to in our boardroom struggle

I completely disagree with that D'art. there are numerous threads over the last 18 months re DK and very many, many of the comments were damning of him due to his carry on with the tax man in SA and didn't want him anywhere near Ibrox due to that - me included. It was too close to the bone and too close to Whytes carry on with our own tax authorities.

Personally, I think that DKs deal cutting in SA is not the perfect way to conduct your business - particularly in the context of Rangers and the tax cases we had hanging over us. However, he has kept out of jail, has managed to keep his directorships etc, and being pragmatic, I think he is the only guy who has the money to shore us up. I am therefore prepared to forget his past indescretions and hope he has learned his lesson.

I'll be honest cush and say I have not seen many threads which would suggest King is anything less than wanted. But Im referring to recent times rather than 18 months ago.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Whilst we almost self-flagellate over the issue with Dave King, we should consider that the bad publicity fall-out appears only ever to land on our Club. The less-than-white dealings of directors and owners at other clubs barely gets a mention either from the media or their own fans. One need look no further than the despicable organisation at Parkhead. Desmond is hardly the epitome of good directorship neither was Reid. I'm sure if we look deep enough into their affairs then we would find more evidence of "shady" dealings. For instance, how many were involved with tax-dodge investments in "film production" companies which produced no films? Look at the dealings they have had in cahoots with the city council over land beside the San Giro. There are also unsavoury deals involving land beside their old training ground at Barrowfield and their new training area at Lennoxtown. The amounts paid for these two areas were derisory and should be subject to public enquiry.

King may not be the "whitest" of knights but neither are those in charge of our enemies.

I now feel the need to send off a number of letters on this subject.

I agree with your sentiments JCD but Im not really looking to make comparisons with others. Im wondering what type of owner DK would be and whether given that character assessment by Southwood, we as a support should be cautious rather than all welcoming.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

' very confident ' ' not uncomfortable about giving evidence when cross examine '. ' well versed in the intricacies of the financial world ' ' arrogant and whatever he thinks , is so ' . Sounds like the kind of guy we need , cos let's face it D'Art , good guys win nothing - it's usually the determined , ruthless ones.

To get to your point tho - do I think about the moral aspect should DK come back to Ibrox - no I don't. The reality is this goes on in the business world and not just in DK's one. King obviously thought he had a case , even if he pushed it to the limits .

So how does this compare to the scrutiny of other candidates ? I think trying to reduce your tax affects us all and therefore there's a wee bit more of an understanding of that when you're up against the taxman. On the other hand , we' re not so understanding of someone that's supposed to represent us making an arse of himself drunk , another then recording it , and possibly a third one leaking it.

As I said in summary gm - perhaps he has the armoury required for fighting the type of battle we are in.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I think Dave King is seen as a savior not through his own attributes of which there are a few but as the cast of this drama we are constantly watching are such poor candidates and we are deserate for someone, anyone who has a little backbone to help us out King is better suited for us than Murray P or M or Stockbridge and hes certainly much richer than the Easdales but we should be wary of putting DK on too high a pedestal for if we expect too much from him we may well find ourselves just as disappointed in him as we are now with everybody else.

I would concur ES - I think perhaps we are expecting too much and are likely to be disappointed.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I personally worry about the club being in any single owners hand - more so someone so far away and that is with out even worrying about his character! One premise I thought green had right was the 10% rule and what we need is the concept of a board putting the club first not an owner who has us as a play thing !

I have no problem with single ownership BP9 so long as there is a mechanism to give fans a means of ensuring our club is being run with proper governance. Whilst Green's 10% rule seemed like a potent safety valve - in reality it wasnt given the size of some of the bonuses being paid for very little. Doesnt really help if all the 10%'s view our club as a gravy train.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I have no problem with single ownership BP9 so long as there is a mechanism to give fans a means of ensuring our club is being run with proper governance. Whilst Green's 10% rule seemed like a potent safety valve - in reality it wasnt given the size of some of the bonuses being paid for very little. Doesnt really help if all the 10%'s view our club as a gravy train.

Oh I agree with most of that! -

I have major issues of trust on the single ownership model but the recent way our board and external 'fans' have operated makes me also fear the 'democratic' model - fans own 12% of the shares out with the bigger investors - we need to learn to use that influence ! How is the question! And sorry don't ( yet ) have an answer

[JCDBigBear 10,989]

Oh I agree with most of that! -

I have major issues of trust on the single ownership model but the recent way our board and external 'fans' have operated makes me also fear the 'democratic' model - fans own 12% of the shares out with the bigger investors - we need to learn to use that influence ! How is the question! And sorry don't ( yet ) have an answer

We need a better fans' organisation. The existing groups (or should that be factions) all seem to either be self-seeking or virtually anonymous. I'd be happy to join and help run any new organisation. I don't want a seat on the board because of that. I don't want to run any new organisation, I'd simply want to help run it. I don't want my name in the papers as spokesman, I'd only be in favour of press releases. I don't want preferential treatment for tickets or special select meetings with the club directors. I just want an organisation where each fan gets one vote. We would all get our say. Such a group could have shareholders and non-shareholders as members.

Fan ownership is 99% certain not to happen and that is probably a good thing.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

One of the things I'm not yet clear on with DK is whether it is DK himself and his money or just his money that many want to see at Rangers. DK the person might rub raw with his history as per the SARS article - but then many might see that as a strength. After all Charles Green ran more than a bit raw at times - there were times when the cheerleaders were visibly encouraging him, and there were other times when (cringe) it was own goal territory. That strength of leadership and character might be just what is needed to knock heads together on a Board and to provide the sort of driving force we might need. But why would the Scottish press (in general) give him any less of an obstructive and accusatory time than it has done to everyone else at Director level at Ibrox in the last year or so? So would DK the person bring yet more hostility from the press and from others and invite new grounds for speculation and so on. Besides DK might be confident he would clear all the SFA requirements but in Scotland these days anything is possible when it comes to blocking Rangers recovery.

Or is it DK's money but minus DK taking a leading role? For example, inserting his 'man' (whoever that might be) to represent his interests on the Board. So now the bit I don't quite see yet - if he puts money in (and to make the vital difference it would have to be big money) then what does he get in return. Chairmanship or Directorship would risk keeping him in the media eye on a hostile basis for a long time - not something I'd have thought he would welcome given his other business interests and the risk of contamination of these interests by a persistently hostile and noisy press in Scotland. If it is a financial return then that may have a long payback period but if he is happy with that then fair enough. That does not eliminate the moral consideration of the assessment of his character. But bear in mind there are probably many leaders over the course of history whose character would not have won them favours in being less than economical with the truth. Its a routine occurrence for many politicians.

Maybe DK and Mike Ashley between them should just put together a 50/50 joint venture and buy Rangers. They could then install their own Board with their trusted team and keep in the background while that team did the job it needed to do to get Rangers back to the very top and CL football and to generate an acceptable return on the investment. Wishful thinking eh?

[Bertent 2,081]

By that one party do you mean DK Bert ?

yes

[legalbeagle 3,734]

The point about Dave King is that Rangers fans have been ground down into wanting so much to believe in him as the saviour that we almost don't want to question him because it would be so much easier if this all came to an end.

Simple facts are that anyone seeking to take charge at our club should be subject to the same scrutiny: what are the future plans for the football side of things, for funding and for ownership. In addition, DK has questions to answer reference his tax issues and around his opposition to a CVA.