Frankie 8,570 Posted June 18, 2015 Author 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? No, I'm sure you're right but, like I say, Ashley may just 'sell' or transfer his shares to another interested party... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 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... Jim Ballantyne at Airdrie? Your last sentence sums it up for me. This has become deeply personal between two egotists, a battle of wills and to fuck with the consequences. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 18, 2015 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. Not if you have already been prosecuted for it, no, you wouldn't. If Ashley was to pull another stroke which breached the rules, then there would be further sanctions. 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'm confused, mate. But no matter. He's a danger to our club and any chance to bloody his nose is welcome. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 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? It reads to me that it will be added in order to stop any further breaches of the rules, rather than it being used to bar anyone who has done so in the past but I'm certainly no expert. Was further detail provided at the GM? 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 reads to me that it will be added in order to stop any further breaches of the rules, rather than it being used to bar anyone who has done so in the past but I'm certainly no expert. Was further detail provided at the GM? Don't think so. But as it says, the board is considering applying this rule where breaches occur, and the SFA have now re-confirmed said breach... 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.