Ashley Fails in Legal Bid to Interfere with Rangers AGM

[colinstein 294]

so what's the implication of this ?

[limeburner 0]

Surely this was allways gonna be a shot in the dark.He owns a legitimate 9% stake therefore hes entitled to a 9% say.

Before anyone starts---I loathe him.

[calscot 0]

I think the reasoning for it is very good, and that it wholly protects us from the relevant SFA and UEFA codes. The £500k bonus we were obliged to pay Newcastle if we were promoted, shows a precedent conflict of interest, giving it good reasoning for fiduciary duties.

[limeburner 0]

I think the reasoning for it is very good, and that it wholly protects us from the relevant SFA and UEFA codes. The £500k bonus we were obliged to pay Newcastle if we were promoted, shows a precedent conflict of interest, giving it good reasoning for fiduciary duties.

Totally agree.However it seems they dont fancy appliying"common sense" today!!

[colinstein 294]

The Petitioners were successful in their application to require the Company to withdraw Resolution 11 from consideration by shareholders at the AGM. Although the decision has been made on an interim basis only until the Petition can be fully considered by the Court, this means the Resolution will not be presented to the meeting and shareholders will not be afforded the opportunity to vote upon it. The Company will now consider how best to proceed.

[craig 5,199]

I think the reasoning for it is very good, and that it wholly protects us from the relevant SFA and UEFA codes. The £500k bonus we were obliged to pay Newcastle if we were promoted, shows a precedent conflict of interest, giving it good reasoning for fiduciary duties.

 

I agree with that sentiment. However, where you get into the grey area is that, as far as I am aware, the Companies Act is what binds us in terms of fiduciary duties - I don't believe (could be wrong) that the Companies Act has any legislation around dual ownerships. That is what I imagine the issue at play is here - that he owns 9% legitimately and, therefore, is entitled to have voting rights to that same extent.

 

What the SFA and UEFA do is of little relevance to the Companies Act enforcers.

 

Again, I could be wrong. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I completely agree with you that the resolution is indeed one which protects the Company from receiving fines from the governing bodies.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Interim decision, so it could still stand for voting at a later date.

[Bruno55 0]

Ffs i bought our advent calendar today and every window i opened Ashley has it blocked.....

[RabiDuck 89]

Mike Ashley pursues SFA over Rangers fine and Dave King appointment

24 November 2015

From the section Glasgow & West Scotland

Mike AshleyImage copyrightGetty Images

Image caption

Mike Ashley is seeking judicial reviews of two SFA decisions relating to his involvement with Rangers

Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley is challenging decisions by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) which relate to his involvement with Rangers.

The first relates to a £7,500 SFA fine in March over a breach of their rules on dual interest in football clubs.

He is also challenging an SFA decision to pass Dave King as "fit and proper" to become Rangers chairman despite his tax convictions in South Africa.

Both judicial review cases will be heard at the Court of Session in 2016.

Mr Ashley's £7,500 fine was for contravening the SFA's dual-ownership regulations.

Company ownership

The Sports Direct billionaire fell foul of the SFA's disciplinary rule number 19 which states that no person who has a formal interest in one club can have a similar role in another side.

Lawyers acting for Mr Ashley claim the SFA acted incorrectly and are seeking a judicial review into the SFA's decision.

The second case is brought by Mr Ashley's company, MASH Holdings Limited, who wish the SFA's decision to declare Mr King a "fit and proper" person to be judicially reviewed.

The company is the ownership mechanism in which Mike Ashley holds his shares in Rangers.

Mr King had to be ratified by the SFA due to his tax convictions in South Africa.

The businessman admitted to 41 breaches of the South African Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a £43.7m settlement in 2013 following a legal battle.

Lawyers for MASH claim the SFA's decision was wrong and that Mr King is not a fit and proper person to be involved with a football club.

 

-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34910374

 

Interesting development. Is it right that I want him to win this one as it would likely have a positive repercussion for the club as we were hit by the same SFA ruling? Or is that a simplistic view?

[RabiDuck 89]

Mike Ashley pursues SFA over Rangers fine and Dave King appointment

24 November 2015

From the section Glasgow & West Scotland

Mike AshleyImage copyrightGetty Images

Image caption

Mike Ashley is seeking judicial reviews of two SFA decisions relating to his involvement with Rangers

Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley is challenging decisions by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) which relate to his involvement with Rangers.

The first relates to a £7,500 SFA fine in March over a breach of their rules on dual interest in football clubs.

He is also challenging an SFA decision to pass Dave King as "fit and proper" to become Rangers chairman despite his tax convictions in South Africa.

Both judicial review cases will be heard at the Court of Session in 2016.

Mr Ashley's £7,500 fine was for contravening the SFA's dual-ownership regulations.

Company ownership

The Sports Direct billionaire fell foul of the SFA's disciplinary rule number 19 which states that no person who has a formal interest in one club can have a similar role in another side.

Lawyers acting for Mr Ashley claim the SFA acted incorrectly and are seeking a judicial review into the SFA's decision.

The second case is brought by Mr Ashley's company, MASH Holdings Limited, who wish the SFA's decision to declare Mr King a "fit and proper" person to be judicially reviewed.

The company is the ownership mechanism in which Mike Ashley holds his shares in Rangers.

Mr King had to be ratified by the SFA due to his tax convictions in South Africa.

The businessman admitted to 41 breaches of the South African Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a £43.7m settlement in 2013 following a legal battle.

Lawyers for MASH claim the SFA's decision was wrong and that Mr King is not a fit and proper person to be involved with a football club.

 

-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34910374

 

Interesting development. Is it right that I want him to win this one as it would likely have a positive repercussion for the club as we were hit by the same SFA ruling? Or is that a simplistic view?

 

Obviously my interest is in the first part, not the second!