Darthter 542 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Surely the SFA must need hard proof in order to penalise anyone. While we believe that Ashley is calling many of the shots, a guilty verdict cannot be passed without concrete evidence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Surely the SFA must need hard proof in order to penalise anyone. While we believe that Ashley is calling many of the shots, a guilty verdict cannot be passed without concrete evidence. Did they ever manage to punish Romanov for having interest in three clubs? Apparently, ownership of Kaunas and Minsk could never be proved - just sponsorship. That's Ashley's precedent right there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) As I said we do not know yet. Quite frankly I'm uneasy about a billionaire being chased away from our club should that arise.We need funding and he can provide it. The fictional writer, Paul Sheldon, needed medical care, food and water - and Misery could provide it... Ashley feels like a similar scenario to me. Edited December 16, 2014 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) Surely the SFA must need hard proof in order to penalise anyone. While we believe that Ashley is calling many of the shots, a guilty verdict cannot be passed without concrete evidence. Disciplinary Rule 19: Except with the prior written consent of the Board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (b) no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (b) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or © have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club. The Board is pleased to announce that the Company's subsidiary, The Rangers Football Club Limited ("RFCL") has entered into a credit facility agreement with MASH Holdings Limited ("MASH") pursuant to which MASH shall make available the sum of £2 million for drawdown by the Company (the "Facility"). MASH is a shareholder in the Company holding 8.92% of the voting rights in the Company. The Facility shall be secured by standard security granted by the Company over Edmiston House and Albion car park. The Facility shall be for a 6 month term and is interest free. The Facility will be used by the Company for general working capital purposes. Under the terms of the Facility MASH has the right to appoint up to 2 directors on the board of directors of RFCL. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12129094.html The offer of a loan by Ashley, with the stipulation that two of his cronies can be put onto the board. That is clearly influencing the management or administration. RFCL accepted this offer so they are in breach too. After your cheerleading yesterday of Llambias' purge on the Ibrox staff, your comments here come as little surprise, but sad all the same. Edited December 16, 2014 by Rangersitis 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) Did they ever manage to punish Romanov for having interest in three clubs? Apparently, ownership of Kaunas and Minsk could never be proved - just sponsorship. That's Ashley's precedent right there.[/QUO The SFA raised proceedings a few months ago against Livingston on the basis that one of their shareholders had interests in two other Scottish Clubs. If memory serves the situation was similar to Ashley and us as he had lent money to one of the other Clubs and his daughter(?) was involved with the other one. The way in which it was determined may be an indication as to how our situation will be dealt with, though of course these sort of things are often too case specific to apply generalisations. Edited December 16, 2014 by Calgacus 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I don't think the SFA have the financial resources to haul Mike Ashley anywhere! I'm less worried about the SFA's struggles with Ashley, but concerned what they'll heap on us instead. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmu 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 mm does Lawell having his hand up the arse of various club chairmen, Thompson etc, constitute "having control" of another club!! lol 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 BTW, has the compliance officer sent a notice to the chap who stamped on Ian Black during the last game by now? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) Did they ever manage to punish Romanov for having interest in three clubs? Apparently, ownership of Kaunas and Minsk could never be proved - just sponsorship. That's Ashley's precedent right there. The SFA raised proceedings a few months ago against Livingston on the basis that one of their shareholders had interests in two other Scottish Clubs. If memory serves the situation was similar to Ashley and us as he had lent money to one of the other Clubs and his daughter(?) was involved with the other one. The way in which it was determined may be an indication as to how our situation will be dealt with, though of course these sort of things are often too case specific to apply generalisations. Agreed. The outcome has been delayed until next month though. Edited December 16, 2014 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 After your cheerleading yesterday of Llambias' purge on the Ibrox staff, your comments here come as little surprise, but sad all the same. There was no cheerleading.....just a realistic viewpoint. As for the charges, I assume that you are happy for the SFA to pass judgement on the club without having concrete proof that Mike Ashley is actually in control??? 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.