Frankie 8,182 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 The Judicial Panel and Appellate Tribunals have today published their respective Notes of Reasons in respect of the original Notice of Complaint against Michael Ashley, the determination and the subsequent appeal. Original determination Alleged Party in breach - Michael Ashley Disciplinary rule allegedly breached - 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. Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach of Rule 19 and a fine of £7500 was imposed. Appeal The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000. Full appellate judgement here: http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplinaryTribunalOutcomes/Michael%20Ashley%20-%20Appellate%20Tribunal.pdf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 More leverage! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 Some points of note in the judgement which may help the RFC argument vis-a-vis retail contract issue... Also interesting that Ashley again wanted the outcome kept private but was refused. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 More leverage! Possibly but I suspect, if he can, MA may keep this legal argument rumbling on... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 So, King's next move to propose an AGM resolution disapplying Ashley's voting rights now that its been confirmed (again) that he breached dual ownerhsip rules...??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Appointing the CEO and controlling the board has to be more than a "at the entry point for top-end breach". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,299 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 So, King's next move to propose an AGM resolution disapplying Ashley's voting rights now that its been confirmed (again) that he breached dual ownerhsip rules...??? He hasn't exceeded his allowed percentage Rangers ownership has he? This fine was for installing Llambias & Leach 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Some points of note in the judgement which may help the RFC argument vis-a-vis retail contract issue... If the retail contract was considered to be in any way illegal, would the club not just break the terms and put the ball into Ashley's court instead of looking to renegotiate? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 He hasn't exceeded his allowed percentage Rangers ownership has he?This fine was for installing Llambias & Leach Still a breach, as confirmed by the SFA. Again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 If the retail contract was considered to be in any way illegal, would the club not just break the terms and put the ball into Ashley's court instead of looking to renegotiate? You'd think so but they're maybe waiting until one or two other cases are concluded before they attempt to declare the retail stuff as null and void. This may be one such case. I doubt this is something that will be resolved in the short term. Unless, of course, Ashley is the one to take a step back which seems very unlikely. 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.