Jump to content

Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2024/25


Recommended Posts

 
A serious conflict of interest at the very top of our game and it's whataboutery time.


In fairness, I don’t know if there is or isn’t a conflict of interest as I haven’t done enough research but...

- if the complaint is on the grounds that someone has a link to Celtic therefore must be pure evil by the way and hates all things rangers then that is Stone Age Scottish football thinking which i fucking hate. I could be proved wrong.

- it is clear that Dave king is making a very public statement of this for his own benefit. No reason why this couldn’t have been a private matter if the sole problem was a potential conflict of interest. I know you’re not naive enough not to realise that a lot of rangers statements are designed to rally the hard of thinking amongst the rangers support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ross. said:

On the top point - I think most would agree. I hold a minority shareholding in Shell. Does that mean I have a business relationship with the directors?

On the second point - At what point does it become relevant? If they owned1%? 5%? I agree there is some relevance and it should have been disclosed, if simply to err on the side of caution, but given both Desmond and O'Brien are minority shareholders in both companies it is easy to argue either way.

King may have a point with this, but there is no question he is coming out with this stuff because he thinks it is correct. He is doing it to get certain elements of the Rangers fan base frothing at the mouth and angry with the authorities, rather than paying attention to the club and whatever is going on in the background there.

Your Royal Dutch Shell point is a red herring. What % do you own ? You won’t be able to type in enough zeros after the decimal point ! Desmond and O’Brien between them own 45% of Independent News & Media Group. That’s even more than Glib and his concert party own of RIFC !

As to why now, who knows ? If  I was him ( and I was sure of my facts ) I would have sent a private lawyers letter threatening court action to have set aside all decisions made with MacLennan at the helm. Doing it so publicly has given SPFL little room for a climbdown, which is why someone at SPFL ( who ?) has put out a half-arsed non-denial denial of the actual allegation. But I agree that the loud noise and timing of the accusations could equally be a distraction tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Your Royal Dutch Shell point is a red herring. What % do you own ? You won’t be able to type in enough zeros after the decimal point ! Desmond and O’Brien between them own 45% of Independent News & Media Group. That’s even more than Glib and his concert party own of RIFC !

As to why now, who knows ? If  I was him ( and I was sure of my facts ) I would have sent a private lawyers letter threatening court action to have set aside all decisions made with MacLennan at the helm. Doing it so publicly has given SPFL little room for a climbdown, which is why someone at SPFL ( who ?) has put out a half-arsed non-denial denial of the actual allegation. But I agree that the loud noise and timing of the accusations could equally be a distraction tactic.

The red herring aspect is why I asked when it becomes relevant.

O'Brien I think owns less than 1% of Celtic. His name being bandied about in this is largely noise. The link to Desmond(15% of the news company and about 35% of Celtic) is the only issue, if there is one.

I don't think he is sure of the facts. I think he seen something there that hadn't been answered sufficiently that the pedant in him could get away with questioning it. One of Rangers directors sits on the board and was aware of the appointment when it happened. The timing and public nature of the complaint suggests to me it is more about noise than it is about probity or any other notion of fairness within the organisation.

I do agree however that a specific answer backed with evidence should be provided. The problem now though is that even if/when that answer is provided, there will be a large part of the Rangers support who don't believe it and never will. That is what I think King was looking for, and that is what he will have succeeded in doing. Now, no matter what happens, and there is a lot that could given the stuff going on with the takeover panel and prospective rights issues, he can say it wasn't his fault if it goes wrong and the authorities were out to get them, and it will be eaten up by plenty.

Edited by Ross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 


In fairness, I don’t know if there is or isn’t a conflict of interest as I haven’t done enough research but...

- if the complaint is on the grounds that someone has a link to Celtic therefore must be pure evil by the way and hates all things rangers then that is Stone Age Scottish football thinking which i fucking hate. I could be proved wrong.

- it is clear that Dave king is making a very public statement of this for his own benefit. No reason why this couldn’t have been a private matter if the sole problem was a potential conflict of interest. I know you’re not naive enough not to realise that a lot of rangers statements are designed to rally the hard of thinking amongst the rangers support.

 

You're right. There is no reason why a Celtic-preferring Chairman of the SPFL (and  SFA )  can't act perfectly even-handedly. In fact, reasonable people with an obvious perceived conflict of interest often act MORE HARSHLY against their supposed favourites. The issue here is whether the Desmond/O'Brien link was drawn to the attention of the SPFL members BEFORE they decided to appoint. From the non-denial denial statement, it sounds like maybe it wasn't. It wouldn't cut it to simply circulate a press statement saying MacLennan has also taken a post with IN&MG , without saying " oh, and by the way,  IN&MG is 45% owned by Desmond and O'Brien" This doesn't need the pfaff of a full independent investigation.  The board just need to establish the facts at their next meeting and either reaffirm their support for their new chairman. Or not.

By the way, what team did the previous Chairman support ? Hibs ? Now that really is beyond the pale !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nsr said:

Any reason why they wouldn't?

No idea mate that's why I am asking.  Doing the rounds on Twitter (probs mostly Celtic fans fantasies) that maybe they haven't and this is why Dodgey Dave is on one.. 

Edited by Bohemian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

"More worryingly for King, Park also has business links to double treble winners CELTIC!  Across Scotland Celtic travel on coaches supplied by Park’s of Hamilton, the firm owned by Ibrox director DOUGLAS!!!!"

 

Image result for shock gif

  Reveal hidden contents

Image result for shock gif

  Reveal hidden contents

Image result for shock gif

  Reveal hidden contents

Image result for tin foil hat gif

 

 

I' m afraid that ship or bus has sailed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Lots and lots,one been the debt per year plus the licence from 2011.

I agree there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't, but they obviously got one for this season, so I'm just wondering what might have changed. I can't see the Scottish football authorities denying them one for any reason short of nuclear holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Lots and lots,one been the debt per year plus the licence from 2011.

Licence from 2011?  They got one last year.. didn't need it for too long mind:lol:

Edited by Bohemian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nsr said:

I agree there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't, but they obviously got one for this season, so I'm just wondering what might have changed. I can't see the Scottish football authorities denying them one for any reason short of nuclear holocaust.

That's what I was thinking.  No chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nsr said:

I agree there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't, but they obviously got one for this season, so I'm just wondering what might have changed. I can't see the Scottish football authorities denying them one for any reason short of nuclear holocaust.

 

11 minutes ago, Bohemian said:

Licence from 2011?  They got one last year.. didn't need it for too long mind:lol:

The SFA send the appropriate paper work to UEFA,UEFA send it back with a ? and so on,the word is sevco don't have their house in order plus the charges from the SFA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

 

The SFA send the appropriate paper work to UEFA,UEFA send it back with a ? and so on,the word is sevco don't have their house in order plus the charges from the SFA. 

Yeah but it's UEFA we are talking about here, hardly an organisation I'd be looking to for clarity on financial fair play etc...  I'd say sevco are safe enough with that lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, nsr said:

I agree there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't, but they obviously got one for this season, so I'm just wondering what might have changed. I can't see the Scottish football authorities denying them one for any reason short of nuclear holocaust.

FFP has rules on accumulated losses. One possible reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I wonder what Dodgey Dave is trying to cover up by going bat shit crazy over something he knew about months ago apparently... Interesting free weeks ahead I reckon. 

Maybe just sees himself as the hand of justice.

If he’d made the statement dressed as Batman we’d have taken it more seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...