SFA block Ashley from increasing Rangers stake

[BEARGER 1,830]

You're surely still not clinging to the £50m nonsense, or £30m for that matter.

 

Last I heard it was £16m with no proof of funds and only half coming from Mr King and half coming from 8 others only 4 of whom he was prepared to name.

 

And how exactly would you define the "right hands" and who are "we" exactly and what gives you/we the right to make that decision.

 

If Ashley buys new shares the money goes to the Club, what's wrong with that?

 

I just do not understand why the club removed you from their company union Rangers Fans Board, you are a perfect fit for it.

Merry Xmas.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Because these rules were bad rules. Plenty of people own two clubs

 

I'm not sure that this is a bad rule or that if it is a bad rule then that is a good rwaosn for it not to be applied.

 

There are two sides to this as I see it.

 

The SFA have rules about dual ownership/influence and I'm sure they exist for a number of reasons mostly to do with sporting integrity

 

13.2 Except with the prior written consent of the Board, any person who (i) is a member of a

club, (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of

a club or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration

of a club may not take up any such role with another club until such time as the

Scottish FA is reasonably satisfied that such person has ceased to hold such role in the

first club. If

 

Without prejudice to the foregoing, (i) any club or nominee of a club and (ii) any

person who (a) is a member of a club, (b) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the

management or administration of a club or © has any power whatsoever to influence

the management or administration of a club is required to notify the Board in writing

within 7 days of any event which results, or would result, in it/him being entitled to

hold or own, or its/his acquisition or dealing with, securities or shares in excess of 3%

of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such club. This

Article 13.3 is not to be construed as excluding from the ambit of Article 13.1 any

holding by a club or a person to whom such Article applies of shares equal to or less

than 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such

club.

 

13.5 For the purposes of this Article 13:

(a) “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;

(b) “person” includes any body corporate and a partnership;

 

So there is no question that the SFA re entirely within their rights to refuse Ashley permission to own more than 3% of Rangers IFC.

 

But they do have discretion and presumably they have discretion for the reason that a person being in a position to influence two Clubs is not necessarily always a bad thing.

 

I would suggest that the rule exists to prevent a breach of sporting integrity if for example one person were to own or have influence in two clubs in the same competion there are obvious ways were sporting integrity could be compromised e.g. the loan of players of one club to another. This could apply if one person owned two clubs in the SPFL or within Europe as has been well-rehearsed.

 

But if the two clubs do not play in the same competition, to my mind, the issue is less obvious.

 

Take the example of Hearts. Romanov owned or at least had influence over both Hearts and Kaunas. He was "allowed" to acquire 29.9% of Hearts by buying Robinson's shares in 2005 and went on to own more than 80%. Kaunas then loaned numerous players to Hearts, including three well known to Rangers fans: Marius Žaliūkas, Roman Bednář and Linas Pilibaitis who reurned to Kaunas and knocked us out of Europe with his headed goal in the dying minutes in August 2008.

 

Whilst Romanov was constantly in trouble with the SFA for his ridiculous outbursts I don't recall him being taken to task for dual ownership and I don't recall it being said that the fact that Hearts were stacked full of Lithuanian players prejudiced the sporting integrity of the SPL.

 

Given this precedent I would be interested to learn in what way "the Board (considers that consenting to Ashley's request would be against) the interests and public profile of Association Football, its players, spectators and others concerned with the game" as required by Rule 13.6; rather than simply an attempt to create further financial embarrassment for Rangers.

 

Obviously there would be an issue if and when Newcastle and Rangers were in the same European competition but that is at least two year's off and Newcastle have only been in Europe twice in the past 10 years. I doubt that is the reasoning at the moment, if there is any reasoning; and I also doubt that the SFA could reasonably take that into account at this stage.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

What possible reason could someone have for wanting to own two football clubs?

 

If you're selling strips, I would think that's obvious; but ultimately Ashely may not want to own two football clubs.

[pmu 0]

it's Christmas eve for feck sakes lads. merry Christmas to all Gersnetters whether we agree with each other or not. I don't believe theres a single person on here that doesn't want a better Rangers than what we have right now. loads of different opinions on how best to achieve this but it's hard to see what we can actually do to make a difference. hopefully something will happen to improve our lot but wont be betting the house and the wife on a better 2015...

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

I just do not understand why the club removed you from their company union Rangers Fans Board, you are a perfect fit for it.

Merry Xmas.

 

It is kinda weird isn't it. BH always seemed to "toe the party line".

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The SFA are merely applying their own rules - possibly also in line with UEFA's vis-a-vis competition conflicts - so this is hardly another conspiracy.

 

Ashley knew the score so he cant complain.

 

They are indeed but they do have discretion and as I suggest above there is precedent and that discretion must be there for a reason.

 

I don't see that any possible conflict within European competition is relevant at this time.

[BlueSolace 0]

Well I hope the board cave in and accept investment from the likes of King/Kennedy/McColl etc ....

[BrahimHemdani 1]

King doesn't need to sit on the RIFC plc board anymore than Sandy Easdale does.

 

Nor does he need to sit on the RIFC board to have influence as clearly demonstrated by the antics of the said Mr S Easdale.

 

The "fit and proper" test in Article 10 applies to "any official, office-bearer, secretary, director or member of the board of management

or committee of such member and of its or his associates as defined in Article 13.5 in any other member"

[BrahimHemdani 1]

saviors is the word your looking for.

 

Lawwell, Regan, Petrie and Thomson, saviours of Rangers, GS?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Three strikes and you're out

 

24 Hour ban - Frankie

 

That seems a bit harsh to me.

 

Like me RR's opinions are often in the minority but he is consistent and I believe very sincere.