Rangersitis 0 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Still a breach, as confirmed by the SFA. Again. I don't believe anyone is arguing that there wasn't a breach, but it is not something which is ongoing. Anyway, was the plan not to stop the voting rights of anyone who had an interest in another club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 You'd think so but they're maybe waiting until one or two other cases are concluded before they attempt to declare the retail stuff as null and void. This may be one such case. I doubt this is something that will be resolved in the short term. Unless, of course, Ashley is the one to take a step back which seems very unlikely. I'm with you on that, Frankie. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't know why the SFA okayed him to own 10% in the first place. What did they think he wanted to own a chunk of Rangers for, if not to exert an influence? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't believe anyone is arguing that there wasn't a breach, but it is not something which is ongoing. Anyway, was the plan not to stop the voting rights of anyone who had an interest in another club? It's not ongoing but the ruling may hinder any efforts of Ashley to appoint another place-person at board level. As stewarty posted earlier, club will now most likely use this ruling at the next AGM to disapply the voting rights of anyone with a duel-interest of which Ashley may not be the only person. However, as Ashley has done with the subsequent Sports Direct loan, chances are he'll use another loop-hole to get round this or just transfer his shares (and rights) to a friendly family shareholding represented by our resident alias. Round and round we go... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,027 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't believe anyone is arguing that there wasn't a breach, but it is not something which is ongoing. Anyway, was the plan not to stop the voting rights of anyone who had an interest in another club? So if I rob a bank today, I can't be prosecuted tomorrow because the robbery itself is no longer ongoing? Behave... The idea, as far as I undertand, is that any shareholder proven to have been in breach of said dual ownership rules, would be proposed to have their voting rights disapplied, The main benefits thereafter would be a) to prevent him from taking up his portion of shares in the proposed rights issue (as if he'd actually *invest*, snigger snigger); and b) to prevent any future breaches given that the SFA levies fines on the club. All very sensible, as I'm sure the majority of shareholders will agree. Tanks on kiddy-on lawns, etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,027 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't know why the SFA okayed him to own 10% in the first place. What did they think he wanted to own a chunk of Rangers for, if not to exert an influence? They didn't, and that wasn't the basis of the charge. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 I don't know why the SFA okayed him to own 10% in the first place. What did they think he wanted to own a chunk of Rangers for, if not to exert an influence? Agreed. However, the situation may have been different at this stage - as well as the promises made to them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,027 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 It's not ongoing but the ruling may hinder any efforts of Ashley to appoint another place-person at board level. As stewarty posted earlier, club will now most likely use this ruling at the next AGM to disapply the voting rights of anyone with a duel-interest of which Ashley may not be the only person. However, as Ashley has done with the subsequent Sports Direct loan, chances are he'll use another loop-hole to get round this or just transfer his shares (and rights) to a friendly family shareholding represented by our resident alias. Round and round we go... There may be a subtelty at play, or I may have misinterpreted... but was the suggestion not that voting rights of shareholders found to have breached dual-ownership rules would be disapplied? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 So if I rob a bank today, I can't be prosecuted tomorrow because the robbery itself is no longer ongoing? Behave... The idea, as far as I undertand, is that any shareholder proven to have been in breach of said dual ownership rules, would be proposed to have their voting rights disapplied, The main benefits thereafter would be a) to prevent him from taking up his portion of shares in the proposed rights issue (as if he'd actually *invest*, snigger snigger); and b) to prevent any future breaches given that the SFA levies fines on the club. All very sensible, as I'm sure the majority of shareholders will agree. Tanks on kiddy-on lawns, etc. That all makes sense of course but that just takes us back to the family shareholding discussed earlier. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,027 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 There may be a subtelty at play, or I may have misinterpreted... but was the suggestion not that voting rights of shareholders found to have breached dual-ownership rules would be disapplied? Also, given the wording of the ruling, it made cleat that the distinction between different legal entites and the beneficial owner did not apply in this instance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.