New DK Info from FF

[Hildy 0]

Britain running the risk of Milliband having power isn't something anyone has voted for though. Aside from the Labour Party electing him leader. I would never vote for Labour so can't be held accountable for such an event. I don't follow your reasoning there (generally always agree with you though). Whoever owned us in a fan controlled environment is something we would hold control over. 'If Britain can run the risk of...' isn't a valid argument.

 

To be fair, we have fans who still think Ally is a manager. On that basis alone, I never want our fans to ever have any power in decision making. Frightening.

 

Having a vote matters.

 

Not having a vote is frightening.

 

People will always disagree and argue that black is white and find reasons to buck the trend, and this is quite normal.

 

We used to think that only the aristocratic elite could have the vote, then we added commoners into the mix, and then women too. We even lowered the age from 21 to 18 and it'll be 16 for the referendum. We used to think that a woman could never be PM, but it happened and Britain is still functioning.

 

Look at our current board. Which of them would you have voted for? They are there because money put them there. We have already seen what happens when money dictates who rules and who doesn't. There is no accountability, no democracy and no hope of preventing a bad owner from making bad decisions.

 

We don't want a board which is free of Rangers supporters. We have no need for a board that puts its own interests ahead of the club. We don't want a board which permits farcical salaries to be paid, but that's what we've got because it bought its way to the table and is as representative of the support as I am of David Milliband and Ed Balls.

 

We need to grow up as a support, stop being deferential to suits, stop tolerating incompetence and bad practice, and start participating in how our club is run.

 

Trusting to luck where ownership is concerned is about as mad as mad can be.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

No he wouldn't.

 

Even the SFA cannot dictate who owns a controlling interest in a PLC.

 

That's true and I'll stand to be corrected but so far as I can read the rules they can subject such a person to a"fit and proper" test because:

 

"The Board must be satisfied that any such person is fit and proper to

hold such position within Association Football" and

 

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

© “associate” means:-

(i) if the person referred to is an individual, (1) a close relative of that

individual, including that individual’s spouse, common law spouse, civil

partner, parent, step parent, child, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or

niece, or a child or stepchild of such parent or spouse, common law

spouse or civil partner or anyone else of a close relationship to that

individual who in the opinion of the Board is or is likely to be acting

in conjunction with that individual; (2) any company of which that

individual or a close relative of such individual is a director or over which

that individual or a close relative of such individual is able to exercise

control or influence; and (3) any individual who is an employee or

partner of that individual or a close relative of any such employee or

partner; and

(ii) if the person referred to or any associate of that person is a body

corporate, (1) any other body corporate associated with it either

through the holding of shares in it or by reason of control by contract

or other form of agreement; (2) any director or employee of that body

corporate or other associated body corporate or any close relative

of any such director or employee; and (3) where any person has an

agreement or arrangement, whether legally binding or not, with any

other person in relation to the exercise of his voting power in a club or

in relation to the holding or disposal of his interest in such club, that

other person; and

(d) “member” means involvement directly or indirectly (and whether as principal,

trustee, nominee, beneficiary or in any other capacity) in a club as a shareholder,

holder of options over any share, holder of convertible loans or securities or any

like instrument; member of a company limited by guarantee; the holder of an

interest in any unincorporated voluntary association; or as possessor of any other

right of ownership or control in relation to a club

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf

 

I won't rehearse the arguments about whether or not Mr King would pass such a test, as I don't want a second yellow from Admin!

[Zappa 0]

A few questions for you BH:

 

1. Exactly which people or departments at the SFA, SPFL or other footballing bodies and organisations have you personally contacted with your concerns on the subject of Dave King passing the fit and proper persons test?
   
2. 
   
3. Have you done likewise on the subject of our directors box residents and upstanding transport tycoons from Inverclyde or anyone else for that matter?
   
4. 
   
5. Do you think it would be appropriate for the Inverclyde tycoons to be sitting in our Club's boardroom and in the directors box every other Saturday while Dave King is ruled "not fit and proper" by the SFA? (an action which is exactly what the enemies of Rangers want the SFA to do)
   

[BrahimHemdani 1]

A few questions for you BH:

 

1. Exactly which people or departments at the SFA, SPFL or other footballing bodies and organisations have you personally contacted with your concerns on the subject of Dave King passing the fit and proper persons test?
   
2. 
   
3. Have you done likewise on the subject of our directors box residents and upstanding transport tycoons from Inverclyde or anyone else for that matter?
   
4. 
   
5. Do you think it would be appropriate for the Inverclyde tycoons to be sitting in our Club's boardroom and in the directors box every other Saturday while Dave King is ruled "not fit and proper" by the SFA? (an action which is exactly what the enemies of Rangers want the SFA to do)
   

 

(1) & (2) None.

 

(3) That's a matter for the SFA but as you well know Mr Easdale falls outwith the 10 year rule, Mr King does not. My opinion is irrelevant.

[Darthter 542]

The SFA rules only come into play if King were to have an active role on the board - Mad Vlad is the perfect example....after all his outbursts @ the SFA, refs etc they were powerless because he didn't have a position within the club, so was out with the SFA jurisdiction.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Darther,

 

I hesitate to take issue with you on this because we usually find ourselves on the same side of this debate but the SFA Rules on "fit and proper" relate 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" (see #42);

 

but the disciplinary rules only apply to "club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player," and I suspect but am not certain, that that is why they could't touch Romanov for his comments.

 

Putting this the other way around, players and managers are not subjected to a "fit and proper" test (though some might think that certain players ought to be!) because usually they are not in control of the Club.

[Darthter 542]

Darther,

 

I hesitate to take issue with you on this because we usually find ourselves on the same side of this debate but the SFA Rules on "fit and proper" relate 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" (see #42);

 

but the disciplinary rules only apply to "club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player," and I suspect but am not certain, that that is why they could't touch Romanov for his comments.

 

Putting this the other way around, players and managers are not subjected to a "fit and proper" test (though some might think that certain players ought to be!) because usually they are not in control of the Club.

 

The point being, if King owns the club, but has no formal involvement in its running, the SFA can do SFA about it. If Laxey Partners made comment about the quality of refereeing for example, what could the SFA do?

 

A shareholder, majority or otherwise, has nothing to do with the SFA. However, I can't see DK not taking a board position if he becomes owner/majority shareholder....

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

The point being, if King owns the club, but has no formal involvement in its running, the SFA can do SFA about it. If Laxey Partners made comment about the quality of refereeing for example, what could the SFA do?

 

A shareholder, majority or otherwise, has nothing to do with the SFA. However, I can't see DK not taking a board position if he becomes owner/majority shareholder....

 

Do you genuinely believe DK is ready to put up tens of millions to get control of and invest in Rangers?

[Darthter 542]

Do you genuinely believe DK is ready to put up tens of millions to get control of and invest in Rangers?

 

I want to believe, but not convinced....

[the gunslinger 3,366]

to invest in rangers definately. for buying out the ****s no chance.