craig 5,199 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Removing voting rights? To protect the Club. So he isn't to protect the Club from SFA sanctions ? Jesus wept. Edited January 27, 2016 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,459 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 To protect the Club. So he isn't to protect the Club from SFA sanctions ? Jesus wept. what sanctions ? Ashley isn't over his shareholding limit. It was appointing L&L which caused the SFA to fine him 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,459 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 And King's removal changes that ? I doubt it. Ashley got outplayed and he has thrown his toys out the pram. Ashley also knows that the criminal proceedings are likely to throw some unwanted light on his own involvement and will do whatever it takes to prevent it happening, hence his thirst for legal proceedings. It doesn't matter whether it is Dave King or King Billy that owns Rangers - Ashley would still be pursuing the CLUB. Don't doubt it. What involvement ? do tell us 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,471 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 what sanctions ? Ashley isn't over his shareholding limit. It was appointing L&L which caused the SFA to fine him It is to prevent Rangers being accused of breaching disciplinary rule 19 which states that no person should have the power to influence the management or administration of another club (paraphrased). Allowing Ashley to vote at an General meeting breaches the rules and the directors are correct in taking steps to prevent him from doing so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,471 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 What involvement ? do tell us Voting at an AGM for example. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) It is to prevent Rangers being accused of breaching disciplinary rule 19 which states that no person should have the power to influence the management or administration of another club (paraphrased). Allowing Ashley to vote at an General meeting breaches the rules and the directors are correct in taking steps to prevent him from doing so. and of course Ashley has a concert party of up to 25% of the votes which could( and has )prevented major decisions being taken like a new share issue. He therefore HAS influence in more than one club thereby breaching SFA rules Edited January 27, 2016 by colinstein 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,459 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Voting at an AGM for example. He didn't vote at previous AGM's? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,471 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 He didn't vote at previous AGM's? Yes, and the SFA looked into it. Best to tighten up any loose ends. Just because they don't pull you up about something once doesn't mean they won't do it in the future. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,459 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 It is to prevent Rangers being accused of breaching disciplinary rule 19 which states that no person should have the power to influence the management or administration of another club (paraphrased). Allowing Ashley to vote at an General meeting breaches the rules and the directors are correct in taking steps to prevent him from doing so. UEFA do not prohibit dual ownership AFAIK. For the simple reason it would never stand up in a law court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,459 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Yes, and the SFA looked into it. Best to tighten up any loose ends. Just because they don't pull you up about something once doesn't mean they won't do it in the future. Looked into it ? LOL Why didn't they do anything about it? Edited January 27, 2016 by RANGERRAB 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.