Ashley Fails in Legal Bid to Interfere with Rangers AGM

[forlanssister 3,050]

what's the third part that's been deferred ?

 

This is it:

 

11. “THAT: the Articles of Association of the Company, be and are hereby amended by inserting a new Article

 

15.3 as follows:-

 

“No member shall be entitled to vote at any general meeting or at any separate meeting of the holders of

any class of any shares in the Company, either in person or by proxy, in respect of any shares held by him

(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)) if he is involved in

any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a Club, or has any power whatsoever to

influence the management or administration of a Club and the Directors of the Company shall be entitled

at their sole discretion and without issuing reasons therefor to determine whether or not a member does

have such involvement in or power to influence a Club.

 

For the purposes of this Article “Club” shall mean any football club in membership of a national association

which is in membership with FIFA other than Rangers Football Club.”

[MacK1950 2,231]

According to daily mail he has interdict against dual holdings.

[chilledbear 16]

Daily Mail

 

The Ibrox board had sought approval of the resolution to guard against any future breaches but would have required 75 per cent backing at the AGM for it to enter the company’s articles.

While it seems that move has been halted by Ashley’s court challenge, action against two other resolutions – relating to the board’s ability to allot shares – is thought to have failed.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3327971/Mike-Ashley-drags-Rangers-court-Newcastle-owner-continues-bitter-feud-Ibrox-board.html#ixzz3s7hd9i6J

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[SteveC 150]

That's still bloody bad news, then

[boabie 230]

That's still bloody bad news, then

 

It will take a bit longer, that's all imo. When the shares are diluted without Ashley gaining any more the board will be able to pass that resolution.

[forlanssister 3,050]

It will take a bit longer, that's all imo. When the shares are diluted without Ashley gaining any more the board will be able to pass that resolution.

 

Only if the Court validates the resolution.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I tend to keep out of saying much in these type of threads, through lack of subject knowledge, so leave the guys with the experience to lead the threads. So one question from me, does resolution go ahead for voting at the agm, or is the club barred from putting the resolution up for vote?

[forlanssister 3,050]

I tend to keep out of saying much in these type of threads, through lack of subject knowledge, so leave the guys with the experience to lead the threads. So one question from me, does resolution go ahead for voting at the agm, or is the club barred from putting the resolution up for vote?

 

That's unclear at the moment.

 

I think but am not certain it can still be voted on but cannot be implemented.

[Frankie 8,150]

Latest update from the court is that Ashley has now been successful in his bid to remove Res 11 from the agenda.

[Frankie 8,150]

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-to-shareholders/