Bad News

[super_ally_rfc]

The SFA will have to break their rules to appoint King, as they did when they allowed Sevco a temporary membership so they could fulfil a diddy fixture against Brechin in 2012. How many other clubs who restructure their company set-up have had to wait 3 months to get a membership of the SFA? Answer - none.

yawn - you not understanding the difference between conditional and temporary is getting boring

[bluek]

You're confusing me with somebody else. No sure why because I don't change monikers or post under different usernames.

You're right - I was confusing you with someone who would give an honest opinion when asked.

The man has settled his dispute with the SA authorities.

The law courts here have no issue with him becoming a director of Rangers.

As long as he does what he says he will do then I am content with him to be in charge.

Whether you think that's the party line or not really is irrelevant to me.

As I thought.[/quote]


I do give honest opinions. It doesn't suit you though so therfore I'm lying.

Again, no really giving a phuck

[DeezAreGood]

The SFA will have to break their rules to appoint King, as they did when they allowed Sevco a temporary membership so they could fulfil a diddy fixture against Brechin in 2012. How many other clubs who restructure their company set-up have had to wait 3 months to get a membership of the SFA? Answer - none.

yawn - you not understanding the difference between conditional and temporary is getting boring [/quote]you not understanding that Rangers liquidated and died is baffling, even though there was no club called Rangers anywhere in existence at the time. Apart from the one owned by Rangers PLC which was doomed tae liquidation

[AguyIknow]

Care to give your honest opinions on the three points I highlighted bluke - or are you selective with your honest opinions ;-)

[bluek]

Care to give your honest opinions on the three points I highlighted bluke - or are you selective with your honest opinions ;-)

Not at all Atimiknow

1 what's your point?

2 did the previouss you've mentioned go to the court of session to ensure they were cleared to take a directorship?
What did you want king to do?

3 well obviously not having a crystal ball I don't know for sure if the current crop are going to deliver but I along with everyone else will have wait and see.
You seem to think I see King as some sort of perfect being who craps diamonds and wears a halo
But you batter on

[AguyIknow]

Care to give your honest opinions on the three points I highlighted bluke - or are you selective with your honest opinions ;-)

Not at all Atimiknow

1 what's your point?

2 did the previouss you've mentioned go to the court of session to ensure they were cleared to take a directorship?
What did you want king to do?

3 well obviously not having a crystal ball I don't know for sure if the current crop are going to deliver but I along with everyone else will have wait and see.
You seem to think I see King as some sort of perfect being who craps diamonds and wears a halo
But you batter on[/quote]

Point 1 is that though he's nominally "paid his debt to society" he's still a convicted fraudster and a glib and shameless liar.

Point 2 The previous mentioned didn't have to go to court as at least some of them were in good standing with the law - didn't make them any more trustworthy when

[bluek]

I may be wrong and I'm sure you know exactly what is going on at Ibrox far better than me but as far as I understand the Nomad issue isn't with King but they have requested further clarity wrt the current state of the football business?

Again Atimiknow, you may turn out to be 100% correct and King etc ( the man owns multiple businesses, why the phuck he would get involved in Rangers currently other than to save it is beyond me )
are only interested in worsening the current state of the club.

I just prefer to wait and see what happens right now.

[AguyIknow]

I may be wrong and I'm sure you know exactly what is going on at Ibrox far better than me but as far as I understand the Nomad issue isn't with King but they have requested further clarity wrt the current state of the football business?

Again Atimiknow, you may turn out to be 100% correct and King etc ( the man owns multiple businesses, why the phuck he would get involved in Rangers currently other than to save it is beyond me )
are only interested in worsening the current state of the club.

I just prefer to wait and see what happens right now.

Of course nobody knows for sure what the future will bring but Whyte and Green were similarly successful businessmen, or so we were told. Yet I don't think anyone is in any doubt why they wanted control of The Rangers - they saw it as a cash cow. I suspect that King might too.

The proof of the pudding will be seeing how much of his wealth he's willing to put into the club he claims to love

[happytim]

another thing about mr king. he was actually part of the old board which left rangers at the mercy of craig whyte and having to be sold for a pound and so was paul murray, so having any of them spout about mismanagement in the last 3 years is a fekin laugh and the biggest irony ever.

if he was so concerned with saving rangers as bluek insists why didnt he buy from d murray.

then when it looked as if whyte was going to put rangers into administraiton why didnt he buy from whyte but instead along with murray watch whyte bail out rangers bank debt using ticketus money.

when it looked like rangers were heading for liquidation why didnt he buy them then.

or why didnt he buy them from chuckles.

he had several opportunities as did a whole load of other "rangersmen" but refused to put the money in and instead let rangers liquidate.

hes been found guilty of being a tax dodger, and was convicted. he has been called a "glib and shameless liar" and by all means has already mislead sharehol