Articles

Matthew Lindsay’s Herald Article On Dodgy Dave Is A Masterpiece Of Misleading Nonsense.

|
Image for Matthew Lindsay’s Herald Article On Dodgy Dave Is A Masterpiece Of Misleading Nonsense.

First, it’s a rare thing to see a journalist question anything that Dave King does, so I guess we should be grateful that Matt Lindsay at The Herald has bothered. But this is the sports department headed up by Neil Cameron and which employs Chris Jack to mind-numbing effect, so it was never likely that a full-throated, and honest, assault on King would be forthcoming.

Lindsay’s article, on how the Takeover Panel ruling might affect both chairman and club pulls its punches.

It also distorts reality to a point that can’t be ignored.

So riven with this misleading nonsense is Linday’s piece that I believe it’s imperative to go over it paragraph by paragraph to bring some clarity to the work.

So without further ado, let me begin.

WHERE would Rangers be just now without David Cunningham King?

Where they are with him.

The graveyard.

But I digress.

If we assume he’s talking about Sevco, let’s proceed with the rest of the piece.

Would they have just installed Steven Gerrard as their new manager? Would they be waiting to launch a European campaign? Would they have signed seven players who had been identified by their Director of Football? Would they have taken back control of their retail operation? Would they be hopeful of challenging Celtic for silverware in the season ahead? It is all very unlikely.

First up, Gerrard is a rookie boss with a famous name.

Their “European campaign” is being launched although they don’t properly qualify for a license on FFP grounds.

The “seven players” include a free transfer with a woman beating charge, a loanee from Liverpool reserves, a return to Ibrox for a player who walked out on freedom of contract when the old club died, a last season loan turned permanent deal, a Canadian international, a Brighton reserve and an unknown Croat.

As to the retail operation, Lindsay must be banging his head against the wall this morning, for reasons which I made plain in the opening article of the day.

And “hopeful of challenging Celtic”?

In the way I am “hopeful” of winning the Booker Prize one day, for my as yet unfinished second novel.

That’s what’s “very unlikely” here.

The Ibrox club may not, as the forthcoming campaign is liable to show, be at the same level as their Parkhead rivals, but progress has certainly been made, both on and off the park, since King and his associates took control three years ago.

Oh really?

In that time they’ve sacked four managers, been in court more times than a leading QC and exist at the mercy of directors loans. Progress? In what direction? Forwards or backwards? I could make a compelling case for the latter.

The previous regime, an unfortunate alliance between Greenock businessmen James and Sandy Easdale and Sports Direct tycoon Mike Ashley and his acolytes, had left Rangers facing a highly uncertain future. Crowds had plummeted to their lowest levels in three decades. There was concern about dwindling finances, alarm over the ownership of precious club assets and protests in the stands.

That “unfortunate alliance” had Sevco on the verge of breaking even. Living within its means. Being out of financial peril. The “dwindling finances” argument is a nonsense; the club was in a far better financial position than they are in right now. And if crowds were plummeting it was because King, in the role of Pied Piper, was filling their heads with nonsense. As to the “ownership of precious club assets” … well some of those are now mortgaged to a finance company and the training ground has a third rate kit makers name on it.

So that worked out well.

Where would it all have ended if King, George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor hadn’t come along when they did? And what would happen if the soft loans being provided by those wealthy benefactors and others were no longer forthcoming? How would the losses be offset? It just doesn’t bear thinking about for supporters who have been through so much trauma and turmoil during the past six years.

No argument on the “wealthy benefactors” who are keeping the lights on at Ibrox, or at least who were.

They’ve refused to extend their loans and King now has to meet the payroll. Which will make a nice change as there’s no real evidence he’s put up money before now. The credit belongs to the other directors.

It’s not clear King deserves any.

It is, then, no surprise that King commands the widespread, if not universal, backing of the support. Yes, there were banner displays and chants expressing discontent during a game at Ibrox following the heavy and humiliating defeats to Celtic last season. The subsequent appointment of Gerrard, though, has sent his approval rating through the roof.

That’s nothing but a tribute to the enduring gullibility of the Peepul.

But every action made by the inhabitants of the Rangers boardroom must, after the reigns of Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte, Charles Green and those who succeeded them, still be scrutinised and questioned by their followers and that is just not the case as things stand.

That, and the next few bits, are the only parts of the article with which I agree 100%.

 The statement released by the Takeover Panel, who have been involved in a lengthy legal stand-off with King over his failure to make an offer to his fellow Rangers stakeholders for their shares, on Wednesday was practically ignored.

It was ignored by more than just the Sevco fans. The full implications of it have never been fully explored by the press, and nor has the cold truth of it ever been acknowledged.

The Glasgow-born, Johannesburg-based businessman has repeatedly attempted to make light of this issue by insisting it is of no concern to Rangers. He did so again in a statement released to the BBC this week. “It is not something that I see as critical for the club,” he said.

I would argue that he’s only been able to “make light of it” because the press has allowed him to.

But perhaps that’s coming to an end.

But the reality is this sorry saga may yet have far-reaching implications for both King and Rangers.

Oh you better believe it.

He had insisted that he was unaware the funds for the shares had to be in a United Kingdom bank account in sterling rather than a South African bank account in rand and the requisite cash confirmation provided by an appropriate third party. During a media briefing at Ibrox back in May he said: “They changed the requirement as far as I’m concerned.”

Yes, King really does believe his own BS.

The trouble is, a lot of other people do too.

But that was repeatedly challenged in the lengthy Takeover Panel missive. It read: “It was explained that cash confirmation would need to be provided by a UK financial adviser or bank stating that sterling funds were freely available in the UK and could not be withdrawn.”

In other words, King is a glib and shameless liar.

Not exactly breaking news, right?

So what exactly is the problem here? Is King unable to transfer the money out of South Africa where sizeable foreign exchange transactions are subject to controls or simply unwilling to? Few, if any, shareholders will accept the offer. So why not just comply with the Takeover Panel ruling and focus fully on rebuilding Rangers? This is an expensive and time-consuming process which has tarnished his reputation. Indeed, he has now had contempt of court proceedings initiated against him.

Oh where even to start?

The answer to the first question is twofold; King doesn’t have that kind of cash and nor would he be willing to transfer it if he did. The notion that “few if any shareholders will accept the offer” is risible. This site and others have pointed out how that enough of them are very likely to accept it that King will be forced to pay at least one third of the total sum set aside to actually buy shareholders out. This is why he is resisting.

 The idea that this is what has “tarnished his reputation” is hilarious.

I guess the numerous criminal charges against him, and to which he pled guilty, don’t count. Contempt of court is nothing to a guy who faced more years in a South African prison than Nelson Mandela.

 The prospect of King being “cold-shouldered” – which would prevent any individual or institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority from dealing with him of acting on his behalf – remains a very real one. That sanction would make his position as chairman untenable. And he has previously stated that his investment is incumbent on him holding that office.

And, indeed, that may be the whole point of the exercise, something which nobody in our media seems to want to accept. If the Takeover Panel does prosecute King in that fashion it might provide him with just the excuse he needs to do walking away.

Quite how that possibility has eluded everyone in the Scottish press corps whilst being perfectly plain to everyone in the blogosphere is a mystery to me and a lot of other people.

Elsewhere, the share issue made possible by the passing of Resolution 11 at the AGM last year that was supposed to take place by the end of June and raise at least £6 million in fresh capital has not occurred.

And congrats to Lindsay for being the first hack to actually write about that, even if he doesn’t get his facts right.

In fact, the share issue was supposed to raise “up to £6 million” and not “at least” that sum, and it is already undersubscribed by £1 million as Club 1872 was unable to bring its own participation up to the required level.

The fans who flocked to Ibrox last night to see Rangers take on Bury in Steven Gerrard’s second game in charge are excited and optimistic about the season ahead but there remain reasons for them to be wary about what the future holds.

 They will, as usual, ignore anything they don’t like until the moment when reality literally sinks its iron teeth into their fat arses.

And by then, of course, it’ll be too late.

Share this article