Looks like Dave King voted against the issuing of new shares

King is looking after King, as other say thankful for him coming in as figurehead and doing what he done, however King has and always will look after King, and he likes a fight now and again and could cause one in an empty house.

Unfortunately, C1872 also seem to look after King, ahead of the club.

In the long term, this won't really affect the club at all, it does leave a sour taste (I have no issue with him voting against GP, tbh I probably would myself, but the new shares vote is just King looking after his own position/money and future sell off to C1872 IMO)
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
I personally think having a fan representative on the board for stewardship reasons might be the optimum ID.

They will ensure transparency & the club is protected.
Click to expand...

I think that’s just a dream to be honest mate, once you dine at the top table often enough you become part of it no matter what your title is or supposed to be, you are either in or out with the rest.

It would make the scrutiny the SLO gets like a drop in the ocean and soon they’d be getting called a blazer chaser etc.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
I would simply ask him to be patient & wait until the club re development is at a more mature stage.

He’s voted against the share issue option I would assume because it dilutes his share value, but this shouldn’t be significant and if he does love the club wouldn’t it be something he’s be willing to do ? Apparently no it seems.
Click to expand...
Aye, it’s strange. Maybe he just doesn’t love Dougie et al? I get the frustration with King, but at the end of the day he put his money where his mouth was.

If the current board are completely aligned and King is indeed an obstructive influence to the detriment of the club and in order to further his own motives then he is rightly being questioned and subject to criticism.

The slight diversion in all of this is that separating ‘the club’ from certain interested parties remains difficult when assessing whether or not certain investors are acting out of self interest.

I’m not sure who deserves what by way of praise, belief or criticism to be honest.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
Sounds as if it’s relationships broken down & him reacting to that LLNS ?

He’s been brilliant for the club so why the change for cash he doesn’t need, as you say ?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly something has broken down, but I don’t see Dave King as somebody in need of his money back or holding personal grudges but it’s just the unknown when you are as successful businessman like Mr King maybe I don’t want or can’t see any wrong he has done for us.
 
LarkfiedLoyalNS said:
I think that’s just a dream to be honest mate, once you dine at the top table often enough you become part of it no matter what your title is or supposed to be, you are either in or out with the rest.

It would make the scrutiny the SLO gets like a drop in the ocean and soon they’d be getting called a blazer chaser etc.
Click to expand...

We don't need a fan on the board. What we need is a relationship with Rangers whereby fans can add value and be influential.
 
Kubala said:
I don't think trying to get the money he put back in back is spoiling his legacy.
Click to expand...
Especially when he was upfront from the very start. He didn’t want involved but felt he had to save the club. Every single one of us were desperate for him to do that and for him to sell his shares on to the fans for the future.
 
Wouldn’t be Rangers if there wasn’t a behind the scenes drama unfolding. Many just waiting to criticise Dave King for whatever reason.

Pretty tedious stuff to be honest.
 
Crouchy said:
They made up a well known, three man committee.

Robertson, Park and Dickson.

He explained: “The way we’ve worked it is to have a team of three who were appointed to select the manager. That’s the way we agreed to do it and that’s the way we worked it. There is an executive management team appointed to take it forward. The chairman has delegated that responsibility to us.

“It was up to us to present our recommendations. We are trusted to do it by the club. I don’t know when Pedro and Dave will meet but we will get something organised. It is more important that Pedro spends time getting in amongst the squad and understanding what is happening.”

Robertson would dispute that.
Click to expand...
If Andrew Dickson was in anyway involved or had a say in the appointment of a football manager for Rangers FC then that is quite frankly beyond laughable.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
Especially when he was upfront from the very start. He didn’t want involved but felt he had to save the club. Every single one of us were desperate for him to do that and for him to sell his shares on to the fans for the future.
Click to expand...
I think that this is essentially it mate (at least at face value). King believes that the fans should have a tangible protective interest in the club. The others don’t.

It explains the disconnect.

If the board expressed dismay at the undermining of the share issue by King’s expressed shareholding intentions, and King felt that the other interested parties financial commitments and exposure to risk didn’t necessarily reflect his when going public in their criticism of his plans, then who could reasonably blame him if he feels that certain individuals should at least reciprocate his levels of investment before questioning his motives.

Essentially, if King is being accused of putting himself before the club and yet the others are hedging whilst retaining a significant degree of influence and control without a commensurate financial commitment, I can see why there is and was discord.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
King is letting himself down to me mate.

He was adored for saving the club & decided to take a back seat, good on him. He was lauded more than any of the others.

But to create division with the others when the club is still in very much a development stage is selfish IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree,why couldn't he wait til the Club was self sufficient,if he's Rangers through and through,why create this side show. The guys at the helm are doing a great job and I was encouraged with the Q&A session just before the meeting. We've so many plans bubbling away,why spoil it.
 
boracay ranger said:
It is a complete myth that Dave King persuaded Steven Gerrard to come to Rangers. He had already decided to come after his interviews with Mark Allen and Stewart Robertson and before he met Dave King on the day of the Roma game at Anfield. I was told this by the only man who really knows the true story.
Click to expand...
That’s not true it had nothing to do with Allen and Robertson the reason Gerrard became Rangers Manager and I know this for a fact mate.
 
jackstar said:
I agree,why couldn't he wait til the Club was self sufficient,if he's Rangers through and through,why create this side show. The guys at the helm are doing a great job and I was encouraged with the Q&A session just before the meeting. We've so many plans bubbling away,why spoil it.
Click to expand...

Yes, just be patient Jack.
 
Haining84 said:
Voting solely against the son of one of our biggest investors when he’s never done it before is extremely petty from DK imo.
Click to expand...
It's not petty if he doesn't agree with it. It's a token gesture in the grand scheme of things but no-one would vote against what he thinks is right.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
I think that this is essentially it mate (at least at face value). King believes that the fans should have a tangible protective interest in the club. The others don’t.

It explains the disconnect.

If the board expressed dismay at the undermining of the share issue by King’s expressed shareholding intentions, and King felt that the other interested parties financial commitments and exposure to risk didn’t necessarily reflect his when going public in their criticism of his plans, then who could reasonably blame him if he feels that certain individuals should at least reciprocate his levels of investment before questioning his motives.

Essentially, if King is being accused of putting himself before the club and yet the others are hedging whilst retaining a significant degree of influence and control without a commensurate financial commitment, I can see why there is and was discord.
Click to expand...
I can completely see why both views don’t line up anymore. King had his plan and the other investors were on board and at that time everybody was focussed on sorting Rangers.

King is following through with what he set out to do and I don’t think we can really have a problem with that. But he’s no longer in the boardroom or providing funding while others are. Rangers fans can’t agree on the colour of shite and C1872 is a train wreck, so I can see why the people currently providing funds and running the club won’t be in a hurry for 1872 to have more input. I can’t say I’d be happy with the train wreck careering into the boardroom either.

Even though those 2 sides appear to be at odds I can’t really back one over the other.

I really wanted the fans to get the percentage required to safeguard the club but C1872 could disappear for all I care about it now.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
I think that this is essentially it mate (at least at face value). King believes that the fans should have a tangible protective interest in the club. The others don’t.
Click to expand...

The unpalatable fact is that, outwith a core of supporters, there is no real appetite for supporter ownership within the Rangers support.

That is, no real appetite to front up money for it en masse and take it forward.

Perhaps “the others” are fully aware that looking to the fans to grasp the nettle is largely futile.
We were good at share contribution when the shit was hitting the fan and we were one minute to midnight, but how many cancelled when the millionaires came in and we “didn’t have to worry”?

We’re a great support in the stadium at times but off the field we’re a fucking shambles and have been for years.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
Aye, it’s strange. Maybe he just doesn’t love Dougie et al? I get the frustration with King, but at the end of the day he put his money where his mouth was.

If the current board are completely aligned and King is indeed an obstructive influence to the detriment of the club and in order to further his own motives then he is rightly being questioned and subject to criticism.

The slight diversion in all of this is that separating ‘the club’ from certain interested parties remains difficult when assessing whether or not certain investors are acting out of self interest.

I’m not sure who deserves what by way of praise, belief or criticism to be honest.
Click to expand...

Yes, the truth is that none of us know the whole story & we’re all guessing with limited knowledge.
 
looway said:
It's not petty if he doesn't agree with it. It's a token gesture in the grand scheme of things but no-one would vote against what he thinks is right.
Click to expand...
Either it is spiteful, tactical or he thinks that GP isn’t competent enough.
 
Leo_Ger said:
Don't know his motivation behind the shares issues.

Always surprised Graeme Park managed to survive the Caixinha debacle completely unscathed though.
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced Graham Park is on that board based on merit or skill set, unsure if there is evidence to support the contrary.
 
boracay ranger said:
Of the many people I know who knew, liked and worked with Dave King not one would claim to have a close relationship with him and that includes members of his family!
Click to expand...
The depicts a man without emotion and we all know that’s not totally accurate after his AGM exit speech.
 
BobbyShearer said:
The unpalatable fact is that, outwith a core of supporters, there is no real appetite for supporter ownership within the Rangers support.

That is, no real appetite to front up money for it en masse and take it forward.

Perhaps “the others” are fully aware that looking to the fans to grasp the nettle is largely futile.
We were good at share contribution when the shit was hitting the fan and we were one minute to midnight, but how many cancelled when the millionaires came in and we “didn’t have to worry”?

We’re a great support in the stadium at times but off the field we’re a fucking shambles and have been for years.
Click to expand...

If a well respected business person or preferably persons were to be connected to a fans vehicle as opposed to relative unknowns like Chris Graham and other well intentioned individuals allied to transparent governance, then I think that perhaps fan ownership, or at the very least a safeguarding interest that can’t easily be circumvented, as a viable option would be backed by sizeable and sustainable subscription. The issue lies in satisfying investors incentives for providing a proportion of the backing.

Why can’t the German model of ownership work here?
 
TCWNS1872 said:
I could be well wide of the mark here, but I strongly suspect that Dougie et al are none too enamoured with the merest whiff of fans groups having any sort of say in the running of the business. I could be wrong, but we have never heard definitively what the Park’s stance on fan ownership/executive representation actually is. They may have batted off questions regarding it with vague platitudes in the past, but if King intended to pass his shares on to a supporter led vehicle of some sort and Dougie was averse, it surely explains away the fact that King exited the running of the club. Why has King not offered his shares to Park or anyone else on the open market for that matter? Why has Park not offered to buy them publicly? Does he want to? I suspect not.

Previously, it struck me as a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians. And Dougie doesn’t suffer any other chief but himself. That said, neither does Dave. And on one level who could blame them?

Who was it that once opined that ‘you can’t run things by committee’?
That’s right our erstwhile leader in chief - Sir Duped.
Click to expand...
The idea of any fan group having significant influence in this club gives me the fear. You only have to read these forums and see the absolute nonsensical arguing over every imaginable (and sometimes unimaginable) issue to realise that fans having a say in anything meaningful will be the end of the club.

I reckon about 90% of the people on here talk pish almost all of the time. Most are harmless idiots but some are dangerous.

Luckily those in charge know this and aren't likely to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum any time soon. I'll sleep soundly knowing that.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
Either it is spiteful, tactical or he thinks that GP isn’t competent enough.
Click to expand...
It can't be tactical, he's overwhelmingly outvoted and I don't think there's any gain from making public who his disagreement is with. Everyone else is aligned and they all agree regarding competency. I think he's just voting for what he wants as he's perfectly entitled to do, that's it. He could stir a little if asked to elaborate but he is a disgruntled shareholder looking to minimise his loss and who can blame him when Murray took £20 million from him yet still he came back when we needed him. This Dave King looking after Dave King patter is garbage. Dave King has looked after Rangers for over 20 years and is due a bit of respect.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
Why can’t the German model of ownership work here?
Click to expand...

It absolutely should work, we have the highest football attendance per capita in the world I believe(or did)

We don’t have the vehicle though: the guy, the campaign.
We can sell 2 million x £70 overpriced, badly made shirts in a month ffs, we have the readies.

For me it needs to be something with an end goal-fan ownership with shares can seem unreachable.
A Chelsea pitch owners type initiative would be no problem.
X amount of people with x amount of money in x amount of time = security of the stadium and an individual and collective feeling of “doing something for Rangers”

You take that and attach it to other things and we have our own version of fan ownership.
 
mdingwall said:
His old man wouldn't allow him to occupy the position he does with Parks if he isn't capable.
Click to expand...

2 completely different types of business are they not? Being a capable operator in the motor industry means not a jot in the grand scheme of things where Rangers are concerned.
 
Maxiglw said:
Looks like he would have preferred HE got money for his shares rather than the club getting fresh money in.

Spoiling his "legacy" ? -
Click to expand...
No, but at the same time football's fickle.

If the team don't get investment and this plays a part as to why, well, you can imagine the posts in May if the Torbett's win the league.
 
Big Joke New said:
The idea of any fan group having significant influence in this club gives me the fear. You only have to read these forums and see the absolute nonsensical arguing over every imaginable (and sometimes unimaginable) issue to realise that fans having a say in anything meaningful will be the end of the club.

I reckon about 90% of the people on here talk pish almost all of the time. Most are harmless idiots but some are dangerous.

Luckily those in charge know this and aren't likely to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum any time soon. I'll sleep soundly knowing that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the current state of C1872 necessarily means that fan ownership vehicles can’t work. They have been successful elsewhere. Granted, whether that success can be replicated with regard to our club and whether or not that can satisfy corporate and fanbase ambitions is another story.

Chris Graham and the other prominent representatives of the RST, Rangers First and C1872 were never ever really going to gain serious corporate traction with the high net worth individuals.
 
CoopBlue said:
Well, is he. I guess he is, sort of. Just feel we could have someone a bit more dynamic in the role.
Click to expand...

What in the name of actual eff are you talking about? What does 'I want a more dynamic chairman' even mean?

Mate, seriously. Do you just start writing words and hope they'll somehow make a cohesive sentence?
 
Hap Hapablap said:
2 completely different types of business are they not? Being a capable operator in the motor industry means not a jot in the grand scheme of things where Rangers are concerned.
Click to expand...

The Board is made up of a group of people who are 1) investors and 2) have a diverse range of business experience.

That is true of Boards everywhere. One of my clients in the 'fast moving consumer product' business had a board member who had been a senior executive in an oil company. What he brought was business experience and a different perspective.

It's not for me to second guess any of our current Board appointments. Rather, I prefer to see how the Board and the Club are performing and make my judgements there.

Where you want the in-depth football business experience is in the management of the club rather than having all the board members with that.
 
dublinbear said:
Dave King will always be a hero to me after what he did and put up but he strikes me as a guy that would hold a decade long grudge over a game of monopoly at Christmas.

Exactly the type of character we needed to see off the Spivs but he doesn’t seem to operate well in peace time.
Click to expand...

I think he gets bored if there isn't someone to pick an expensive and protracted fight with
 
WATP said:
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not a fan of family working alongside each other. In my experience true accountability is seldom on a par with a family member vs a hired hand.
Click to expand...
But if he's capable, then he's capable.
 
monkey magic said:
I just don't get the sniping at DK, tbh. He's been incredible for our club.
Click to expand...
What I don’t get is the disapproval of him getting his money back, regardless of who he sells to (assuming that he wouldn’t sell to a potential threat to the club’s continued existence).

And yet, the current board and investors are afforded a pass when it comes to deriving a benefit from the club whether that be financial, goodwill, status or otherwise.

It seems that some are bit precious when conferring benefactor status. It’s bizarre.
 
The theory of fan ownership is great. The reality is fraught with potential pitfalls which are probably accentuated the larger the company becomes and the bigger the numbers are involved.

Consider if C1872, who have thus far struggled to raise enough funds to even acquire Kings shares, were, in fact, the majority shareholder and potentially required to be the ones injecting new funds or to offer loans. How exactly would they do this? Might individual fans continue to invest under such circumstances? In theory yes, in reality, I'm not so sure it works in our current situation.

I'd also offer that our current custodians, all successful businessmen in their own right, would not want to lose control to any fan-led organization.
 
Hurricane Run said:
Obviously regardless of whats going on Dave King will always be a legend, but i have to say, i think he is causing unnecessary off-field drama. He chose to bow out, hes coming across as quite petty just now. Undermining the board whenever an opportunity presents itself.

Wish they could all just settle their differences and move on.
Click to expand...
Agree, he seems a bit of an weird one in all respects. His time is gone and he’s made a mess of the club1872 thing.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
True. But no matter who King sells to it means less money for Rangers unless there is a proviso that further investment follows the equity transfer.

It remains extremely doubtful that King will relinquish his power of veto as ably illustrated by his voting behaviour today. Maybe that is part of an agreement between him and Park that he would never place their interests in direct jeopardy by selling the whole tranche on the open market?

Who knows? Whatever, it is far from simple and straightforward.

One thing is clear to me: Douglas Park will never relinquish any degree of control to a fans group.
Click to expand...
Rightly so, fan ownership would be a fucking unmitigated disaster. It should never happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top