SFA block Ashley from increasing Rangers stake

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Regardless of who anyone supports in theboardroom battle the SFA ruling about dual ownership is laughable and would never stand up in a court of law in a million years. I suspects Ashley's lawyers may well have told Rhegan's SFA just that. Thereare numerous example of dual(and more ownership) throughout Europe

 

the courts have nothing to do with sfa rules. all a court can do is rule on whether the sfa have followed their own rules.

 

if the sfa rules are clear then ashleys lawyers will be spiting in the rain.

[RANGERRAB 3,657]

the courts have nothing to do with sfa rules. all a court can do is rule on whether the sfa have followed their own rules.

 

if the sfa rules are clear then ashleys lawyers will be spiting in the rain.

 

Football's governing bodies aren't above the law.The Bosman ruling was the classic example of that. The 4 foreigner rule another

Edited January 26, 2015 by RANGERRAB

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Football's governing bodies aren't above the law.The Bosman ruling was the classic example of that

 

no but what law allows you to buy two football clubs.

 

we sign up to association rules and volunteer to abide by them. they cant make us commit a crime but they can do anything else.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

no but what law allows you to buy two football clubs.

 

we sign up to association rules and volunteer to abide by them. they cant make us commit a crime but they can do anything else.

 

That's why QC's are paid handsomely for splitting legal hairs GS.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

That's why QC's are paid handsomely for splitting legal hairs GS.

 

oh if the sfa rules aren't clear you can sure take them to court. or worse if the sfa aren't following it's own rules.

 

we proved that.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

oh if the sfa rules aren't clear you can sure take them to court. or worse if the sfa aren't following it's own rules.

 

we proved that.

 

The low level paper gatherer and his Tim colleagues rewrote the SFA rules, and they couldn't even get them correct at the title stripping thieving tribunals.

[pete 2,499]

I would actually say FIFA and UEFA are above the law. You only have to look at the Africa WC and the corruption of Blater to see that.

Once you sign to play by the rules you just have to do that.

[RANGERRAB 3,657]

no but what law allows you to buy two football clubs.

 

we sign up to association rules and volunteer to abide by them. they cant make us commit a crime but they can do anything else.

 

What law doesnt? Giampaolo Pozzo owns three: Udinese, Watford & Grenada

I would have thought UEFA would have wanted this sort of ruling harmonised throughout.

Why did the SFA introduce it anyway?

[RANGERRAB 3,657]

I would actually say FIFA and UEFA are above the law. You only have to look at the Africa WC and the corruption of Blater to see that.

Once you sign to play by the rules you just have to do that.

 

With all due respect Pete Ithink you're onto something different altogether here i.e. Corruption

[RANGERRAB 3,657]

The low level paper gatherer and his Tim colleagues rewrote the SFA rules, and they couldn't even get them correct at the title stripping thieving tribunals.

 

They didnt do a very good job re-writing them did they? LOL