SFA Compliance Officer issues Notices of Complaint against Rangers and Mike Ashley

[Rangersitis 0]

not ignoring anything.....just raising a point that was talked about last night....

 

The fact of the matter is that the SFA have absolutely zero powers to force Ashley to do ANYTHING, whether that is a fine or even to turn up to the hearing. They also (I believe) have zero power to force RFC to cover any fine or punishment directed @ Ashley.

 

Ashley insisted that he appoint 2 board members as part of his loan agreement, we can't argue that, what the SFA must prove is that Ashley is providing guidance to Llambias and therefore influencing board decisions.

 

Laxey forced their man (Crichton) onto the board, and were probably able to have influence, did the SFA check if Laxey were involved with ANY other football clubs/organisations???

 

No, no and thrice no. The insistence that they be placed on the board is where 'influencing the administration....' comes in. You were told that and you still try to deflect the heat away from Ashley's actions by introducing Laxey into the mix. If you have reservations regarding Crichton's appointment, report it to the Compliance Officer.

[Rangersitis 0]

What is it they say is the first victim of conflict ?.....................the truth

 

Who has that suited in the past and who would that suit now ?

 

It's transparent, but it works.

[Rangersitis 0]

... something that I aluded to before, Darther

 

In that case, you could write a joint letter.

[der Berliner 3,218]

In that case, you could write a joint letter.

 

I was refering to the Laxey part in Darther's reply. Cracked a smile at the "joint letter" remark, would point at Darther's just raising a point that was talked about last night and would ask you to lay the sledge-hammer away before replying. Cheers.

[Rangersitis 0]

I was refering to the Laxey part in Darther's reply. Cracked a smile at the "joint letter" remark, would point at Darther's just raising a point that was talked about last night and would ask you to lay the sledge-hammer away before replying. Cheers.

 

I am well aware of his "just raising...." excuse, but that particular poster has been pushing the pro-Ashley agenda, not that I would have expected you to notice. In light of your less than stellar performance when it comes to calling things right, I will ignore your advice on how I should post. Cheers.

[der Berliner 3,218]

I am well aware of his "just raising...." excuse, but that particular poster has been pushing the pro-Ashley agenda, not that I would have expected you to notice. In light of your less than stellar performance when it comes to calling things right, I will ignore your advice on how I should post. Cheers.

 

And you are obviously in a position to judge and teach us all? Good to know.

Edited December 17, 2014 by der Berliner

[Frankie 8,123]

Gentlemen, please take your handbags to somewhere the rest of us can't read it.

[Darthter 542]

I am well aware of his "just raising...." excuse, but that particular poster has been pushing the pro-Ashley agenda, not that I would have expected you to notice. In light of your less than stellar performance when it comes to calling things right, I will ignore your advice on how I should post. Cheers.

 

I have been pushing no agenda - I have nothing against Ashley, but I am definitely not in support of him either. I usually tend to try and play a devils advocate position - try and see the wider picture. To some, this appears as being a Pro stance, when in actual fact it's nothing of the sort.

 

Obviously you are happy for RFC & MA to simply accept the charges from the SFA, and for us to roll over & accept any punishment they see fit????

My viewpoint is that if the SFA can't provide concrete proof that MA is influencing the club, then neither has a case to answer. MA requesting that Llambias is appointed to the board (in return for a significant loan) is only part of the issue. The SFA need to show that Llambias is actually carrying out MA's instructions.

 

As for the Laxey issue.....What if they do have connections to other football clubs??? That would then indicate that the current charges are only being pursued due to MA's media profile.

[Rangersitis 0]

I have been pushing no agenda - I have nothing against Ashley, but I am definitely not in support of him either. I usually tend to try and play a devils advocate position - try and see the wider picture. To some, this appears as being a Pro stance, when in actual fact it's nothing of the sort.

 

Obviously you are happy for RFC & MA to simply accept the charges from the SFA, and for us to roll over & accept any punishment they see fit????

My viewpoint is that if the SFA can't provide concrete proof that MA is influencing the club, then neither has a case to answer. MA requesting that Llambias is appointed to the board (in return for a significant loan) is only part of the issue. The SFA need to show that Llambias is actually carrying out MA's instructions.

 

As for the Laxey issue.....What if they do have connections to other football clubs??? That would then indicate that the current charges are only being pursued due to MA's media profile.

 

The very act of giving the loan with that stipulation included is evidence of Ashley influencing the administration. This is the fourth and final time I am going to tell you this. If you can't grasp it, I have nowt else to give.

 

I told you what you could do about Laxey. If you feel that strongly about Ashley's victimisation because of his public profile, it seems like a good way to go.