Lets All Laugh At Rangers Thread

[bennett]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Genuine question:  What exactly is the nature of the conflict?  

I've probably not paid sufficient attention, but I'm not quite getting how glaring the offence is.

 

Put it in a nutshell for me.

Basically that the spfl never disclosed that their chairman was linked with two prominent shareholders of a premiership club, who between them own a large percentage of company that he's a director of...

 

2 hours ago, MagicBeans said:

I love some of the conspiracies about Desmond and O’Brien.

If Denis O’Brien gave a single f**k about them he would have had them shut down when the shares were on the open market. He is the man who launched a hostile takeover of INM because he hated Tony O’Reilly’s guts. O’Brien’s media investments have been pretty poor over all- he is a megalomaniac who wants to control what is said about him. He is quite prepared to flush millions away on things.

Dave King could take some advice from O’Brien and Desmond on how to conduct a hostile takeover whilst not breaching 30% and being considered concert parties though.

 

Densboy returns....

 

32 minutes ago, xj2011 said:

I am surprised anyone would be quick to take his side on this without being confident that he has a rock solid case to make.? 

 

 

 

 

MacLennans dual roles do give cause for concern, the spfl have to be beyond reproach here.

[xj2011]

11 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

MacLennans dual roles do give cause for concern, the spfl have to be beyond reproach here.

Agreed. However, if only Rangers fans were as equally vocal and concerned about the squeaky cleanness of their own club/company, they probably wouldn't find themselves in the mess they currently find themselves in?

Speaking of the importance of being "beyond reproach", Dave King, like others before him, I highly doubt (according to the requirements set out in the SFA's rules) should ever have been considered as a "fit and proper" person to own any professional football team, never mind the mighty Gers.

Despite their rather vague 'reasons' for his passing the test here https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-mr-dave-king/

The rules regarding the “fit and proper” person test are contained in the SFA Articles of Association. They state at Article 10.2 :-

(h)   he has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or more, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud;

How he managed to pass the test is beyond me... maybe one for Stewart Regan to answer? Oh wait... he bolted shortly after King lost his last court case.

Basically, I think you should look a bit closer to home before putting energy into hanging onto Dave's every word, truthful or not, against the SPFL.

[MagicBeans]

He was appointed for one simple reason, O’Brien’s man Leslie Buckley had to leave the INM Board. INM needed to appoint a media person to the position, not another DOB puppet.

I can tell you so many DOB stories but he does not give a flying crap about the SPFL. He has enough battles on his hands to last a lifetime.

At most, INM put it out there amongst the Board on who they should look for. Desmond might have known MM through Scottish football, but I wouldn’t be even sure of that. They are both non executive roles, this is a non story.

If you wanted to criticize MM, it should have been when he was first appointed as his allegiances were well known.

[The_Kincardine]

8 minutes ago, xj2011 said:

Basically, I think you should look a bit closer to home before putting energy into hanging onto Dave's every word, truthful or not, against the SPFL.

You may not like DK and, for sure, the jury's still out in the Kincardine Cooperage, but that doesn't mean that the SPFL hasn't a case to answer.

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, MagicBeans said:

He was appointed for one simple reason, O’Brien’s man Leslie Buckley had to leave the INM Board. INM needed to appoint a media person to the position, not another DOB puppet.

I can tell you so many DOB stories but he does not give a flying crap about the SPFL. He has enough battles on his hands to last a lifetime.

Maybe not the best TLA to use in this context

Edited May 30, 2018 by The_Kincardine

[bennett]

14 minutes ago, xj2011 said:

Agreed. However, if only Rangers fans were as equally vocal and concerned about the squeaky cleanness of their own club/company, they probably wouldn't find themselves in the mess they currently find themselves in?

Speaking of the importance of being "beyond reproach", Dave King, like others before him, I highly doubt (according to the requirements set out in the SFA's rules) should ever have been considered as a "fit and proper" person to own any professional football team, never mind the mighty Gers.

Despite their rather vague 'reasons' for his passing the test here https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-statement-mr-dave-king/

The rules regarding the “fit and proper” person test are contained in the SFA Articles of Association. They state at Article 10.2 :-

(h)   he has been convicted within the last 10 years of (i) an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or more, (ii) corruption or (iii) fraud;

How he managed to pass the test is beyond me... maybe one for Stewart Regan to answer? Oh wait... he bolted shortly after King lost his last court case.

Basically, I think you should look a bit closer to home before putting energy into hanging onto Dave's every word, truthful or not, against the SPFL.

Right now I'm not really interested in what is commonly known as whataboutery.

There are valid concerns regarding the chairman of the spfl not being as independent as he should be, those concerns must be thoroughly investigated.

 

[xj2011]

14 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You may not like DK and, for sure, the jury's still out in the Kincardine Cooperage, but that doesn't mean that the SPFL hasn't a case to answer.

agreed, and I hope their position, whether guilty or not is made perfectly clear over the coming days.

[xj2011]

9 minutes ago, bennett said:

Right now I'm not really interested in what is commonly known as whataboutery.

There are valid concerns regarding the chairman of the spfl not being as independent as he should be, those concerns must be thoroughly investigated.

 

like all good Rangers men, you only care about 'whataboutery' when it suits you to do so

Fair enough

[SilverWolfe]

Right now I'm not really interested in what is commonly known as whataboutery.
There are valid concerns regarding the chairman of the spfl not being as independent as he should be, those concerns must be thoroughly investigated.
 

You still haven't explained why his independence would be compromised in this situation. What exactly is the threat to his independence and how would this impact the SPFL and it's members?

Out of Interest, would you also like the following people investigated?

Ann Budge (Hearts)
Les Gray (Hamilton Academical)
Stewart Robertson (Rangers)
Warren Hawke (Morton)
Martin Ritchie (Falkirk)
Iain Dougan (Stranraer)

If not, why not?

It's interesting that we hear news of an investigation into Rangers disclosure of tax payables back in 2011 and suddenly within 2 weeks Dave King has requested an investigation into 2 different men of authority for having something against Rangers.

Some might think he is deflecting from the the real issues at Rangers and trying to paint a picture that doesn't exist so the gullible Rangers fans can blame the powers that be for hating poor old Rangers.

There is no conflict of interest and no investigation is required, this is fact.

[The_Kincardine]

35 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Out of Interest, would you also like the following people investigated?

Ann Budge (Hearts)
Les Gray (Hamilton Academical)
Stewart Robertson (Rangers)
Warren Hawke (Morton)
Martin Ritchie (Falkirk)
Iain Dougan (Stranraer)
 

These people are there to represent their various clubs as well as the greater good of the game.

The role of the independent chairman is to be exactly that.  That part of his income is dependent on his role in a company whose largest shareholders are also the largest shareholders of a member club of the SPFL is, at least, questionable.  I am astonished that you, as a Dumbarton fan, are taking umbrage at this.

[sjc]

Conflicts of interest and corruption at the SFA and SPFL? Who'd have thunk it?!

A full and open investigation into these Institutions and Member Clubs going back 20 years (including backdated punishments for the guilty) would be a great start. A move to reform and the transparent running of them  going forward wouldn't go amiss either.

Edited May 31, 2018 by sjc

[Jdog]

34 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

These people are there to represent their various clubs as well as the greater good of the game.

The role of the independent chairman is to be exactly that.  That part of his income is dependent on his role in a company whose largest shareholders are also the largest shareholders of a member club of the SPFL is, at least, questionable.  I am astonished that you, as a Dumbarton fan, are taking umbrage at this.

[MrSpikey]

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

The chairman of the SPFL is also non exec chairman of a £300 million media company.  The largest shareholders in a member-club of the SPFL are also the largest shareholders of said media company.

Only one of the top three Celtic shareholders owns INM shares, Desmond, and while he is the largest Celtic shareholder, he isn't the largest INM shareholder, holding only 15%.

So, presumably you meant to say, "the largest shareholders in a member-club of the SPFL are not the largest shareholders of said media company".

[cyderspaceman]

This thread has been hijacked. None of the above is funny.  I suppose we'll have to wait  'til 12th of July to laugh.

Then again a week later.

[bennett]

16 hours ago, Tartantony said:

You still haven't explained why his independence would be compromised in this situation. What exactly is the threat to his independence and how would this impact the SPFL and it's members?

Out of Interest, would you also like the following people investigated?

Ann Budge (Hearts)
Les Gray (Hamilton Academical)
Stewart Robertson (Rangers)
Warren Hawke (Morton)
Martin Ritchie (Falkirk)
Iain Dougan (Stranraer)

If not, why not?

It's interesting that we hear news of an investigation into Rangers disclosure of tax payables back in 2011 and suddenly within 2 weeks Dave King has requested an investigation into 2 different men of authority for having something against Rangers.

Some might think he is deflecting from the the real issues at Rangers and trying to paint a picture that doesn't exist so the gullible Rangers fans can blame the powers that be for hating poor old Rangers.

There is no conflict of interest and no investigation is required, this is fact.

The non executive chairman is meant to be independent of any club, those names that you posted have a different criteria.

It's been explained to you several times now.

 

[SilverWolfe]

The non executive chairman is meant to be independent of any club, those names that you posted have a different criteria.
It's been explained to you several times now.
 

He is independent of any club.

Nobody has explained why there is a risk to his independence and what this risk is. Not just he loves Celtic and hates rangers by the way, actual risk to his independence in accordance with the Companies Act and it's rules regarding independence of Directors.

Repeating that there is a conflict of interest just because isn't the right answer Bennett.

[The_Kincardine]

13 hours ago, MrSpikey said:

Only one of the top three Celtic shareholders owns INM shares, Desmond, and while he is the largest Celtic shareholder, he isn't the largest INM shareholder, holding only 15%.

So, presumably you meant to say, "the largest shareholders in a member-club of the SPFL are not the largest shareholders of said media company".

Desmond and O'Brien's combined shares in both Celtic and INM would categorise them as 'the largest shareholder' in each company.

[bennett]

1 hour ago, Tartantony said:

He is independent of any club.

Nobody has explained why there is a risk to his independence and what this risk is. Not just he loves Celtic and hates rangers by the way, actual risk to his independence in accordance with the Companies Act and it's rules regarding independence of Directors.

Repeating that there is a conflict of interest just because isn't the right answer Bennett.

An independent chairman with strong links to shareholders of an spfl club clearly shows the potential for a conflict of interests and this needs to be properly looked in to. Rather than the spfl firing off vague deflections.

Rangers questions regarding disclosure should have been answered.

 

[SilverWolfe]

An independent chairman with strong links to shareholders of an spfl club clearly shows the potential for a conflict of interests and this needs to be properly looked in to. Rather than the spfl firing off vague deflections.
Rangers questions regarding disclosure should have been answered.
 

Bennett it is genuinely impossible to have a proper discussion with you on anything. Once again you are ignoring the real question that I have asked you on numerous occasions. If you can't answer it then just admit you don't know.

Why should the question have been answered when the question was put forth in a public statement and not through the correct protocol? Do you not see the consequences of the SPFL doing this? Should they just investigate every claim that is thrown out in public whether that be Dave King or any other club chief? For this to be investigated and answered it should be filed properly, which it hasn't.

The reason Dave King has approached it this way is because he knows there is no conflict of interest but wanted to kick up a storm to get people like you on his side. People that keep on buying into his nonsense. He's a cancer on your club and instead of worrying about conflicts of interest that don't exist you should be forcing this guy out the club before it's too late.

[Bohemian]

2 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Bennett it is genuinely impossible to have a proper discussion with you on anything. Once again you are ignoring the real question that I have asked you on numerous occasions. If you can't answer it then just admit you don't know.

Why should the question have been answered when the question was put forth in a public statement and not through the correct protocol? Do you not see the consequences of the SPFL doing this? Should they just investigate every claim that is thrown out in public whether that be Dave King or any other club chief? For this to be investigated and answered it should be filed properly, which it hasn't.

The reason Dave King has approached it this way is because he knows there is no conflict of interest but wanted to kick up a storm to get people like you on his side. People that keep on buying into his nonsense. He's a cancer on your club and instead of worrying about conflicts of interest that don't exist you should be forcing this guy out the club before it's too late.

sussssshhh.. let them carry on howling at the moon while Dodgey Dave rips the pish out of them..