You really do sound very hate filled. Why is this such an issue for you?
no one with any common sense will trust with their money
He is Chairman of one of South Africa's largest companies. The South African government are his biggest client. He was convicted to what amounts to filling out his tax forms incorrectly. It was a mistake and he faced the consequences of his actions, but how does that impact him or his business' capabilities to add value in a business environment? By virtue of his succes, he is clearly a successful businessman and his historic tax affairs do not change this. Moreover, why should we ignore his track record of putting money into the club without expecting a return because of this?
who was on the board the last time it went balls-up isn't the best man for the job
Well that's true, but what you mention are his reasons for staying on the board:
"I stayed on because I also had my investment and those of the other minority shareholders to protect and I believe that my presence on the board prevented Whyte from getting away with more than he even did.
"The ultimate problem was that he knowingly lied to me and blocked my ability to validate some of his contentions with the club's financial controller.
"I believed that the financial controller had a fiduciary obligation to supply me with information even though it transpired that Whyte had told him not to.
"I was also alert to the fact that Whyte would run out of time and felt that it was better that at least one independent director would be there to protect the interests of the minority shareholders and the fans.
"If I had resigned Whyte would have had carte blanche. The minorities, in my firm view, were defrauded in the initial transaction by Whyte and I intend to seek recourse in that regard once I have access to the Duff & Phelps investigation of the company's affairs."
By staying on the board he was able to acquire information which he then passed on to the authorities including the police and the SFA. As a result, he is now one of several police witnesses into an ongoing police investigation into the the events which led to the club went "balls-up". So how can you argue that it was a bad thing that he was on the board?
he repeats the "back to our rightful place" soundbite
What should he say? It is clear that Rangers playing football where they are is anomalous. So what does he mean by rightful? Well he said Rangers should expect to be in the top league competing with Celtic starting the season with a 50% chance of winning the league. Why is this an unreasonable thing to say? Its been the case for the best part of 143 years, why is it so bad to aspire to return to what is essentially normality?
And I distinctly remember saying that when Charles Green was the knight in shining armour - how did that end again?!
Badly!? But circumstances are hugely different. For a start there are no shadowy shareholder blocks capable of controlling the board room any longer. Also, no shareholder holds enough shares to solely have there way and not be outvoted if the others don't agree. This wasn't the case during the David Murray Era, or the Craig Whyte era. Dave King only owns around 15%. Hypothetically if Dave King was as bad as you say he his, then the other directors: Douglas Park, Paul Murray, John Gilligan would simply outvote him. If that isn't enough, the other 85% of the shareholders could vote him off.