SFA seek answers as Llambias joins Rangers board

[buster. 5,548]

SFA = Chocolate teapot

[der Berliner 4,112]

You would assume that Ashley knows what he is doing here. You would like to know what the exact reasoning behind the 10% rule was/is and whether it is something cast into stone for eternity, which I doubt. The SFA most likely wanted to dodge another Whyte bullet, but obviously Ashley is fundamentally different material. Does the SFA (suddenly) need to "protect" someone/-thing should Ashley attempt to control the club like he does Newcastle? Unless it conflicts with their leagues / competitions, there is no real (and probably legal) reason, one would assume.

 

Then again, certain forces at the SFA won't like the idea that a powerhouse like Ashley might start to back Rangers in earnest (yes, I know that some disagree re investement, but that's very much up for debate), both in terms of monetary power and a rather strong attitude they seldom face in Scotland.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You would assume that Ashley knows what he is doing here. You would like to know what the exact reasoning behind the 10% rule was/is and whether it is something cast into stone for eternity, which I doubt. The SFA most likely wanted to dodge another Whyte bullet, but obviously Ashley is fundamentally different material. Does the SFA (suddenly) need to "protect" someone/-thing should Ashley attempt to control the club like he does Newcastle? Unless it conflicts with their leagues / competitions, there is no real (and probably legal) reason, one would assume.

 

Then again, certain forces at the SFA won't like the idea that a powerhouse like Ashley might start to back Rangers in earnest (yes, I know that some disagree re investement, but that's very much up for debate), both in terms of monetary power and a rather strong attitude they seldom face in Scotland.

 

I agree with most of this but the "rule" such as it exists is in relation to "securities or shares in excess of 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such club" and Ashley seems to have negotiated 10%.

 

There is no real comparsion with the Whyte situation, because he was a disqualified director, so far as has been brought out, Ashley is not.

[RANGERRAB 4,045]

I agree with most of this but the "rule" such as it exists is in relation to "securities or shares in excess of 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such club" and Ashley seems to have negotiated 10%.

 

There is no real comparsion with the Whyte situation, because he was a disqualified director, so far as has been brought out, Ashley is not.

 

If he was a disqualified director why didnt the SFA not try to prevent him getting Rangers ?

[colinstein 294]

The rule is in place to prevent bigger clubs owning smaller ones in the same league and using them as feeders for bringing on developing players

[BrahimHemdani 1]

If he was a disqualified director why didnt the SFA not try to prevent him getting Rangers ?

 

I have told you what I know but you would really need to ask Mr Regan that one.

 

I did have the opportunity to ask him about it once and my recollection is that they let his lawyers take them for a ride over the "in the last 7 years" issue and by the time they got a staright answer if they ever did, the Club was in Admin.

 

Although the situation is different, I think they'll push for much quicker answers this time; but as has been said I don't think there is any comparson between Whyte and Ashley in a business sense either.

[Stimpy 0]

Ashley's lawyers would walk all over the top of the SFA. Not necessarily a bad thing, but precedence shows the SFA to be vindictive when dealing with Rangers. No doubt that'd be used by any legal team to get over any past agreement. I'd like to think our governing body is looking after our interests but as has been said, chocolate teapot springs to mind.

[Rangersitis 0]

If he was a disqualified director why didnt the SFA not try to prevent him getting Rangers ?

 

Surprisingly, he kept it quiet. The BBC uncovered the truth in the October, with Whyte putting his hands up over a month later, after threatening court action. I would put money on you being one of those who was cheering him on from the sidelines against the Bheeb(sic).

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The rule is in place to prevent bigger clubs owning smaller ones in the same league and using them as feeders for bringing on developing players

 

Perhaps so but it is defined internationally "“club” means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA;"

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Surprisingly, he kept it quiet. The BBC uncovered the truth in the October, with Whyte putting his hands up over a month later, after threatening court action. I would put money on you being one of those who was cheering him on from the sidelines against the Bheeb.

 

NO.

 

I am on record as having been against him from the start. I was one of the first to raise the Private Eye article and was toild by many that it was nonsense. I also strongly supported the assessment by the independent members of the Board.