Dave King calls for chairman Douglas Park to go

mart22 said:
Dave King is a character. He's a convicted tax evader, his assets were frozen during his tax trial, he falls out with his friends over money, including Gary Player, and the UK take-over panel cold-shouldered him for four years. While he is cold-shouldered Dave King can't participate in buying any UK company.
Douglas Park has no baggage like this connected to him. We'll never get to hear his version of events directly from him, but if we did I strongly suspect Dave King wouldn't be left in a good light.
You have to ask yourself what did King do to piss off Douglas Park? And why is Douglas Park so disdainful of King today? King claims he didn't threaten to put Rangers into administration, and he didn't leave a huge burden of uncovered costs to remaining directors when he stepped down. Do you believe him? I don't.
Click to expand...
Well said, Dave king has clearly done some good. However it seems to be his ego and money that motivates him. He's desperate to get his money back although hed rather you beloved he was more than happy to donate his kids inheritance
 
The Director said:
The club is badly run when it treats fans like non-entity cash cows.

The club is also badly run given the never ending legal challenges.

The day to day running isn’t done by Park - it’s SR. Park needs to provide that corporate governance which is lacking.

How anyone can be comfortable with the “vision” displayed by Park leaves me utterly bewildered.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, we are customers. We buy tickets to gain entry to the stadium to watch Rangers play football. Why does that confer some extra special status in your mind? Nobody is forcing anybody to do so, same with this 'cash cow' pish. Don't want to spend? Then don't spend. Equally though, this thread is full of folk moaning that the directors aren't spending enough. They're seen as cash cows by the support who apparently want other people to pay for their hobby.

You've yet to give proof of the current board failing to run the club in a proper manner, or a lack of corporate governance. As per my previous post, the majority of the legal action stems from Teflon Dave, the man who thinks contracts don't apply to him.
 
sneddon38 said:
Douglas Park is getting on abit. He is going to step aside sooner rather than later. At some point I would look to ask a Souness type to step in. Souness has a lot of contacts in business and in football. Wouldn’t be the worse appointment. Could you imagine if Park Junior became chairman.
Click to expand...
What qualities does Graeme Souness have that makes him a candidate to be chairman?

Please show me his successful businesses and running of multimillion pound companies, track record of corporate governance, and fiscal management.

Also, he's 69 and Park is 72. At what point is Souness considered to be 'getting on a bit' too?
 
Albertz82 said:
Well said, Dave king has clearly done some good. However it seems to be his ego and money that motivates him. He's desperate to get his money back although hed rather you beloved he was more than happy to donate his kids inheritance
Click to expand...
He's literally using the fans as a cash cow, but saying all the right things in the press to have us turn on the board and believe they are the ones milking us.

What do Rangers gain by us giving King millions? King gone? He gets his money and controls 25% of the club via his puppets in C1872, so either way we're still lumbered with him sniping in the press before AGM, European games and Old Firm matches.
 
Albertz82 said:
Well said, Dave king has clearly done some good. However it seems to be his ego and money that motivates him. He's desperate to get his money back although hed rather you beloved he was more than happy to donate his kids inheritance
Click to expand...
How many times I’ve said this in millionaire terms, I think he’s tight for ready cash, due to strict SA Financial Rules. He’ll be looking for anyway to have assets away from possibly corrupt SA Officials, with funds based in Europe. Nobody has bought his shares, hence his fellow colleagues talking to the American bitch.
 
Twosignals said:
How many times I’ve said this in millionaire terms, I think he’s tight for ready cash, due to strict SA Financial Rules. He’ll be looking for anyway to have assets away from possibly corrupt SA Officials, with funds based in Europe. Nobody has bought his shares, hence his fellow colleagues talking to the American bitch.
Click to expand...
Which is even more worrying if he is so Rangers why is he speaking to the female Charles Green
 
mdingwall said:
Dave King himself explained how Pedro came - a unanimous collective decision.

King did none of the initial groundwoekmon Gerrard, that’s simply a fact. I’m not a fan of Mark Allen but he did all the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...
So if it was a collective decision then surely Robertson and Park Jnr must be equally as culpable as King?

You can’t be blaming it all on King for signing off on Pedro whilst in the same breathe, say King had nothing to do with appointing Gerrard if he signed off on it.
 
Al Needham Loyal said:
Like it or not, we are customers. We buy tickets to gain entry to the stadium to watch Rangers play football. Why does that confer some extra special status in your mind? Nobody is forcing anybody to do so, same with this 'cash cow' pish. Don't want to spend? Then don't spend. Equally though, this thread is full of folk moaning that the directors aren't spending enough. They're seen as cash cows by the support who apparently want other people to pay for their hobby.

You've yet to give proof of the current board failing to run the club in a proper manner, or a lack of corporate governance. As per my previous post, the majority of the legal action stems from Teflon Dave, the man who thinks contracts don't apply to him.
Click to expand...
Reducing the scope of Rangers supporters down to customers is really weird. Strange beyond belief tbh.

You also hit out with the “don’t want to spend?!!” this isn’t a product. Rangers may be something you do to pass the time, but for a lot of us it’s a way of life.

I have not complained about the club not spending enough. We haven’t utilised our resources well enough - that’s very different from not spending enough.

The latest legal action is from the friendly debacle - that’s entirely on this board who had to pull out because the “customers” you so proudly piss on forced them to.
 
The Director said:
Reducing the scope of Rangers supporters down to customers is really weird. Strange beyond belief tbh.

You also hit out with the “don’t want to spend?!!” this isn’t a product. Rangers may be something you do to pass the time, but for a lot of us it’s a way of life.

I have not complained about the club not spending enough. We haven’t utilised our resources well enough - that’s very different from not spending enough.

The latest legal action is from the friendly debacle - that’s entirely on this board who had to pull out because the “customers” you so proudly piss on forced them to.
Click to expand...
And Dave King was on the Board when it was first mooted and didn't object.
 
Brian11Laudrup said:
So if it was a collective decision then surely Robertson and Park Jnr must be equally as culpable as King?

You can’t be blaming it all on King for signing off on Pedro whilst in the same breathe, say King had nothing to do with appointing Gerrard if he signed off on it.
Click to expand...
I didn't blame it all on King. I explained what happened and indeed earlier in this thread quoted exactly what DK said about signing Pedro.

Likewise, I didn't say King didn't sign off on Gerrard. I merely pointed out it wasn't his idea, he didn't do the heavy lifting either.
 
mdingwall said:
And Dave King was on the Board when it was first mooted and didn't object.
Click to expand...
This current board signed off on and subsequently had to withdraw from the Sydney friendly with the Paedophile club. That is an absolute fact.

Also, you and others want to make this a King v Park side taking for the fans - it’s really weird. It’s possible to want Park out and NOT want King in.
 
The Director said:
Reducing the scope of Rangers supporters down to customers is really weird. Strange beyond belief tbh.

You also hit out with the “don’t want to spend?!!” this isn’t a product. Rangers may be something you do to pass the time, but for a lot of us it’s a way of life.

I have not complained about the club not spending enough. We haven’t utilised our resources well enough - that’s very different from not spending enough.

The latest legal action is from the friendly debacle - that’s entirely on this board who had to pull out because the “customers” you so proudly piss on forced them to.
Click to expand...
We are customers, whether you like it or not.

It's odd, cause you first referred to us as customers, but then use it as a strawman to attack, along with constructing a narrative that I've said it's just something to pass the time.

Pish transfers are on the management team, not the board. They came up with the cash.

As Mark has said above, King was happy enough for the Australia thing. Why are you ignoring the others though? The majority of which were legacy lawsuits King landed is with.

Let's not get sidetracked though - you've claimed that there is a failure around corporate governance, but you've yet to give any evidence of this failure whatsoever and keep deflecting to other subjects when asked. Show us the proof
 
Brian11Laudrup said:
Souness these days talks pish on Talksport regularly and I’ve never understood the clamour for him to be involved in our boardroom tbh.
Click to expand...
Also, I've always wanted to know the extent of his role in bringing David Murray to the club?

I adore Sounds - player, manager, pundit, man - but his role in bringing Murray to the club is enough to put me off him having any position in business administration.
 
The Director said:
Do you believe its possible for supporters to want Park out but not want King back?
Click to expand...
Well first of all, through Christ, all things are possible, so jot that down.

Of course it's possible, but given this is a thread where king is calling for Park to go, and multiple posters are advocating for his return then that's going to be a focus of the conversation.

You've yet to tell us where the corporate governance failures you identified are. Let's not go off topic, cause that was what you were asked about
 
Al Needham Loyal said:
Well first of all, through Christ, all things are possible, so jot that down.

Of course it's possible, but given this is a thread where king is calling for Park to go, and multiple posters are advocating for his return then that's going to be a focus of the conversation.

You've yet to tell us where the corporate governance failures you identified are. Let's not go off topic, cause that was what you were asked about
Click to expand...
You have had the most prime example from just this week but you want to ignore it. Strange behaviour tbh. I thought we would have learned from the last 20 years about blind defence of the board and pouncing on any criticism. But here we are.
 
Roskilde said:
Also, I've always wanted to know the extent of his role in bringing David Murray to the club?

I adore Sounds - player, manager, pundit, man - but his role in bringing Murray to the club is enough to put me off him having any position in business administration.
Click to expand...
He wants us and the Paedophile club to share a stadium. He’s not got the qualities required to be the chairman of Rangers.
 
The Director said:
This current board signed off on and subsequently had to withdraw from the Sydney friendly with the Paedophile club. That is an absolute fact.

Also, you and others want to make this a King v Park side taking for the fans - it’s really weird. It’s possible to want Park out and NOT want King in.
Click to expand...
And Dave King was on the Board when it was first discussed and never said a peep.
 
A common retort to those who believe we need change is that the individual suggesting change needs to offer up names. Why?
From a bit of experience what would happen is the company appoints a merchant bank to seek buyers and can stipulate ”terms” under which they’d agree to sell. Now those that state “no one would buy us except spivs” may be correct but without examining the process we don’t actually know do we?
My concern with the board now (as opposed to their Sterling efforts to “save” us) is they’ve put in a lot of cash, but the need for a lot more still exists the stadium and the team. The stadium in particular is miles off what we now see outside Scotland it’s too small and the areas for the fans are dilapidated the area the club owns around the stadium is a mess and those cabins as ticket offices!
So maybe it’s not new owners maybe it’s cash?
 
Given the apparent shambles that is C1872 does anyone know why King is so keen for them to have his shares?
 
shotta1974 said:
Given the apparent shambles that is C1872 does anyone know why King is so keen for them to have his shares?
Click to expand...
He claims it’s to have a large fan voice. I would rather fans bought shares in their own name and voted as our own group rather than through some official group as it’s impossible to get everyone to agree. The dissolution of the RST was a bad move.
 
The Director said:
If he received that offer and was okay with it then he is a disgrace. Only surpassed by the people who actually agreed to it and subsequently had to withdraw.
Click to expand...
So, really, in your opinion. Nowt to do with Dave as he had scarpered.

Here's a bit of advice - if you are trying to act as a cheerleader for a guy try and be a bit less obvious.
 
Al Needham Loyal said:
We've spent an average of 10.1m each season since Gerrard came in.

2018/19 11m
2019/20 11m
2020/21 11m
2021/22 3.5m
2022/23 14m
(Not counting undisclosed fees, loan fees, signing on fees, wages etc)

They already provide the budget you want.
Click to expand...
The budget has never been the problem, the problem is Ross Wilson is spending it.
 
I just don`t think it will ever be possible to galvanise the support as even now there are King supporters and Park supporters who will never change views. 25 minutes into part 1 of the q&a with King and already 4 questions put to him about comments made by Mark and FF in general. This just sum`s up my above point, a supporters group pushing the them and us narrative.
 
The Director said:
If he received that offer and was okay with it then he is a disgrace. Only surpassed by the people who actually agreed to it and subsequently had to withdraw.
Click to expand...
You are getting caught in trap here mate, the fact is King was not on the board when they agreed to play the friendly. Can't believe we've now to apportion some of the blame on him now for that as well, farce.
 
Snoopproddiedogg said:
You are getting caught in trap here mate, the fact is King was not on the board when they agreed to play the friendly. Can't believe we've now to apportion some of the blame on him now for that as well, farce.
Click to expand...
I know full well he wasn’t on the board when it was agreed. Mark is relaying he was on the board when it was first mooted which he is regarding as the only item regarding the friendly. Nothing is to be laid at the board apparently.
 
Al Needham Loyal said:
It's quite clearly King who is making this King v Park.
Click to expand...
Tbh looking at it objectively

Both sides are using others to make it about king v park or park v king.

As someone else said up above its possible both have run their course.

I think there was a change after king left and comms got remarkably worse.

But I think issue here is that we need better people on the executive board, that grow the business and don't make short term decisions. Ie selling car park to fund edminston house. Sydney friendly.

Everything is secretive at moment.

And yes we are customers in a way but it's different football is the way of life for most of us we wouldn't be on a clothes forum ranting and asturias if it didn't mean a lot to us.

When football clubs start treating the fans like customers and not fans then that board loses them an animosity starts........... we will still go we will still pay but anger grows until it becomes a unsustainable aggro.....

A good board will engage with fans, will create a long term plan, will keep regular contact, will engage on the key issues to keep fans onside otherwise it gets nasty.

We don't change clubs like you do brands
 
Al Needham Loyal said:
What qualities does Graeme Souness have that makes him a candidate to be chairman?

Please show me his successful businesses and running of multimillion pound companies, track record of corporate governance, and fiscal management.

Also, he's 69 and Park is 72. At what point is Souness considered to be 'getting on a bit' too?
Click to expand...

Souness had an amazing moustache in the 80s, did Douglas Park or Dave King have amazing moustaches in the 80s?

Didnt think so, checkmate atheists.
 
sneddon38 said:
Douglas Park is getting on abit. He is going to step aside sooner rather than later. At some point I would look to ask a Souness type to step in. Souness has a lot of contacts in business and in football. Wouldn’t be the worse appointment. Could you imagine if Park Junior became chairman.
Click to expand...
Souness as director of football?
 
mdingwall said:
I didn't blame it all on King. I explained what happened and indeed earlier in this thread quoted exactly what DK said about signing Pedro.

Likewise, I didn't say King didn't sign off on Gerrard. I merely pointed out it wasn't his idea, he didn't do the heavy lifting either.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm confused but I'm sure King was talking / acting as if it was his idea to appoint Gerrard.
 
The Director said:
You have had the most prime example from just this week but you want to ignore it. Strange behaviour tbh. I thought we would have learned from the last 20 years about blind defence of the board and pouncing on any criticism. But here we are.
Click to expand...
Where am I ignoring it?

One lawsuit over withdrawing from a tournament under pressure from the customer base to do so does not equate to a total lack of corporate governance, which is what you've asserted throughout this.

You were keen to lay the historic lawsuits at the door of the current board and absolve King of any blame despite them all arising under his stewardship. If anything, you ignoring this despite it being raised several times now only highlights that you have a one sided agenda.

Is Park perfect? Not even close, but unlike Dave he stuck around, and from the evidence you provided (the multiple lawsuits), he has ensured a significant improvement in corporate governance since the previous chairman abdicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top