THE SFA board reserved its discretion as never before.
Independent legal advice, from South Africa as well as Scotland, was sought, racking up more billable hours than a John Grisham novel. Independent bodies such as Police Scotland and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs all chipped in with their tuppence worth. A paper trail stretching from Govan to Johannesburg was posted through the Hampden Park letter box, culminating in one final, crucial, piece of the jigsaw. Then finally, two months after he cleared most of the old occupants of the Ibrox boardroom out at a tumultuous EGM, Dave King was allowed to choose a seat and sit down. He flew into Glasgow last night to test out his throne ahead of tonight's crucial Premiership play-off semi-final first leg against Hibernian.
Yet for all the time and money undoubtedly exhausted by the SFA to satisfy section 10.2 of its Articles of Association, the outcome will have surprised few. The man himself spoke again last night of being the "most scrutinised candidate in Scottish football history" and admitted this indignity was rather understandably a "long one given the [SFA's] recent negative experience with some of the previous board members, who were tasked with being custodians of the club". This was a not-so-veiled reference to Craig Whyte and Charles Green, but the SFA might as well have pointed a finger of blame at those two characters too. Having been perceived to have let these two through the door, the governing body would have been asking for trouble to suddenly deciding King wasn't "fit and proper" to hold office.
The Castlemilk-born 60-year-old's run-in with the South African tax authorities saw him plead guilty of 42 counts of breaching the South African Income Tax Act, agreeing to pay £650,000 in fines and hand over £38.1m in assets in order to avoid spending a maximum of 82 years in jail. He was also still on the board at Rangers when the oldco went into administration in February 2012. Whatever disagreements there may have been around the boardroom table will pass into history, but there was a collective agreement amongst a body of men - which included Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell, SPFL chairman Ralph Topping and Hibs chairman Rod Petrie - that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest any of this breached the 'red flags' set out in the articles. This, it is also noted, is a man who can trade and travel abroad freely, as witnessed by his recent jaunt to the Masters at Augusta.
Whether the SFA now have to devote such exhaustive man hours and budge into every Tom, Dick or Harry who wanders into Montrose or East Fife is one intriguing question, but such matters would have been a detail to King as he swept triumphantly back into Glasgow last night. Others, after all, read something else entirely into the SFA's legalese. For them, this was 'game on', a green light or starter's pistol in the race to return the club to the summit of the game. Who knows, perhaps some last night were dreaming of future transfer war chests to come.
In a sense they were right, but for King the hard work starts now. At least he has had plenty of time to consider his next move. Working out how to best deal with the Mike Ashley situation must be top of his agenda. Can he settle with the controversial Newcastle United owner, who owns 9% of the club's shares, has a £5m loan outstanding, and whose ownership of the club's retail arm is an impediment to the club fulfilling its full potential?
What about the additional investment which he believes is required to flesh out the club's dilapidated infrastructure, with the club no longer listed on the AIM market? And finally, what about getting the right structure in place in the technical area and on the pitch? Stuart McCall still has work to do to return Rangers to the Premiership at the first time of asking, but however that turns out, is King prepared to put the club's future in his hands or does he feel it would be better served with someone else to build a new team? These matters now are all at King's discretion. It should be fun discovering how he chooses to exercise it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article