bennett Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 and both are now held in 'good standing' with those tax authorities, King officially so. Good standing with the tax authorities, a bit different from the stories we've read on here and other places for the last few years. Just look at angryjays latest rant, the facts don't matter to some people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 the facts don't matter to some people. Some people don't have your exemplary levels of honesty and integrity Vicky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 King is a convicted criminal, isn't he? Have I got that wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Cheers magees best mate, wish I could say the same aboot you but.... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Good standing with the tax authorities, a bit different from the stories we've read on here and other places for the last few years. Just look at angryjays latest rant, the facts don't matter to some people. That's quite artful. Almost all of it, looked at from a certain angle, is true. Quality trolling sir. Gave me a giggle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Magee Magee Magee blogs Twitter lies lol . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 and both are now held in 'good standing' with those tax authorities, King officially so. Do both have criminal records? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Bennett in 'serial killer same as late returner of library book '= 'same thing' claim. Not for the first tine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 'The league is going to be very competitive with Rangers coming back up' from one of your own. Thsts the shitest comeback! At least make an effort. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Bennett in 'serial killer same as late returner of library book '= 'same thing' claim. Not for the first tine Both got fined, both paid, both may have faced jail if they never paid. You guys could atleast show some contrition over getting it so wrong. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) So the upshot is we don't know why being a criminal doesn't prevent you from passing the fit and proper persons test nor do we know why being the director of a club that had an insolvency event doesn't matter either and we won't get to know. All we know is that the South African tax authorities are not pursuing dodgy dave at this time. A stunning victory for opacity and corruption, no wonder the bears love it. This isn't a victory for 'The Bears'. It's a vindication of The SFA, if anything. Furthermore, it's right that there should be a degree of opacity around the information garnered through what is a well-defined process. Amusing that you fling the word 'corruption' in. The inference must be that MASH are complicit in said 'corruption'. Why else would they drop their case? Then again, you diddies throw words about like confetti. So we have two possible conclusions to reach here after MASH sought and then aborted a judicial review over the process The SFA used to conclude that King was a F&PP: 1. The sane view. It was a robust and credible process and, having discovered this, MASH dropped the action. 2. The Diddy view: MASH started the process but through some corrupt machination unknown withdrew their action. Feel welcome to correct me on any of the above. Edited April 29, 2016 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Well of course if I say 'tit' you have to reply with 'tat'. This is why we've trodden water on this thread for 3+ years. The Most diddies are singularly incapable of acknowledging their calumnies and moving on. An exception is The DA for whom today's outcome was truly Damascene. Today's capitulation from MASH demonstrated that The SFA had a robust and credible process in place to assess King as a F&PP. Concomitantly it also showed that the wilder claims of The Big Thread Diddies were baseless. That you're not laughing at MASH's peevish press release makes you part of the problem. Full credit to Kincardine here though - "calumnies" is a great word. I also wouldn't try to wrap my gums around "concomitantly" in conversation, and I'm a massive smartarse. "Damascene", no less. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 This isn't a victory for 'The Bears'. It's a vindication of The SFA, if anything. Furthermore, it's right that there should be a degree of opacity around the information garnered through what is a well-defined process. Amusing that you fling the word 'corruption' in. The inference must be that MASH are complicit in said 'corruption'. Why else would they drop their case? Then again, you diddies throw words about like confetti. So we have two possible conclusions to reach here after MASH sought and then aborted a judicial review over the process The SFA used to conclude that King was a F&PP: 1. The sane view. It was a robust and credible process and, having discovered this, MASH dropped the action. 2. The Diddy view: MASH started the process but through some corrupt machination unknown withdrew their action. Feel welcome to correct me on any of the above. You lose all credibility when you use the phrase "well-defined process". Where is this process defined, you really just stated this as a fact to try and bring some credibility to the rest of the pish in the post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 You lose all credibility when you use the phrase "well-defined process". Where is this process defined, you really just stated this as a fact to try and bring some credibility to the rest of the pish in the post. Why did MASH take months to prepare a case against The SFA then drop it like a hot tattie on the day they went to court? It can only be either because they realised The SFA had a robust and credible process or, as tashiebhoy hinted, corruption. Any other suggestions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Lol ffs! What a way to spend your Friday nights! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 'The trademarks slipped his grasp' Was that not because Ashley actually made them repay a loan that they were very reluctant to settle at that time? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 It is quite clear that Mike Ashley wanted to do at Rangers what he has managed to do at Newcastle, basically exploit a club and its fans for every penny he can squeeze out of them and in turn tie up the ownership of the club, assets and commercial components in a complex set intricacies that would again benefit him should he decide to sell. He managed to do this in part with Rangers but was then scuppered by a concerted effort of Rangers supporting fans and businessmen. Much of what he had planned has unraveled, the assets are no longer in his control, the trademarks have slipped his grasp too and his shareholding means nothing in the face of overwhelming opposition to anything he does. The only thing he has left is the retail contract and even that is not as good for him as it once was, the customer base for the retail deal are in most part completely alienated and as such profits from this deal are dire. All of this has made Fat mike quite bitter, spurious court cases are merely his attempt to lash out at those who outmaneuvered him every step of the way and still continue to do so, this past year has been a complete embarrassment for him and he deserves every inch of the humiliation and scorn the so called 'tank general' is now quite rightly receiving. I actually agree with all of this Ted. Bet you're delighted to have my approval -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Why did MASH take months to prepare a case against The SFA then drop it like a hot tattie on the day they went to court? It can only be either because they realised The SFA had a robust and credible process or, as tashiebhoy hinted, corruption. Any other suggestions? Neither of us have the information to draw any conclusions of the behaviour of MASH. What we do know is that the SFA has a process for determining if a person is for and proper to run a football club. Again neither of us is in a position to make a determination as to it's effectiveness as we do not have any information on the process. I know that you would like it to be well defined but that is pure conjecture on your part. The fact that MASH's legal team released a statement alluding to impropriety would cast doubt on the process. Whilst the SFA have released a counter statement, they have not actually provided any evidence to show that the process was robust. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I'm sure the players will have their misreading of the facts pointed out to them. But that has nothing to do with the repayment of the Ashley loan. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 It is quite clear that Mike Ashley wanted to do at Rangers what he has managed to do at Newcastle, basically exploit a club and its fans for every penny he can squeeze out of them and in turn tie up the ownership of the club, assets and commercial components in a complex set intricacies that would again benefit him should he decide to sell. He managed to do this in part with Rangers but was then scuppered by a concerted effort of Rangers supporting fans and businessmen. Much of what he had planned has unraveled, the assets are no longer in his control, the trademarks have slipped his grasp too and his shareholding means nothing in the face of overwhelming opposition to anything he does. The only thing he has left is the retail contract and even that is not as good for him as it once was, the customer base for the retail deal are in most part completely alienated and as such profits from this deal are dire. All of this has made Fat mike quite bitter, spurious court cases are merely his attempt to lash out at those who outmaneuvered him every step of the way and still continue to do so, this past year has been a complete embarrassment for him and he deserves every inch of the humiliation and scorn the so called 'tank general' is now quite rightly receiving. I also agree with almost all of this, the only point I may have a slight issue with is "outmanoeuvred" . It's pretty plain his arguments were weak so not much manoeuvre was required. I'd have been a lot happier if the SFA disclosed the method used to reach F&PP process decision, (not only in this instance but for everyone). I'm still far from convinced that King is fit & proper although he meets the SFA criteria- time will tell I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.