RabiDuck 89 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Thank you Craig as I really had little understanding of the whole thing, that makes a lot of sense. Ashley presumably would take up his full rights issue? What if Easdale sold his to Ashley? Would take Ashley above the permitted threshold, so not a likely outcome. Unless Ashley is really petty and decides that doing so would hurt Rangers more than him... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Would take Ashley above the permitted threshold, so not a likely outcome.Unless Ashley is really petty and decides that doing so would hurt Rangers more than him... And that is the grey area for me, though it is probably due to my limited intelligence. 1. SFA rules prevent him owning more than 10% of the Club due to dual ownership issue. 2. Companies Acts govern incorporated legal entities - I don't think (could be wrong) that they have any such legislation preventing ownership of two different entities. Question is : Does Companies Acts supersede SFA rules ? You would normally say yes. However, in such an instance this would result in the legal entity being non-compliant with its authorities, leaving the legal entity at significant risk, which the Companies Act would be attempting to prevent - so you would have to think that the SFA rules, in this instance, would supersede the Companies Acts - I, for one, would be surprised if the Companies Acts don't at least cover similar instances - I just don't have the time or the inclination to review the Companies Acts to find out. Forlanssister, I know you have done a lot of Companies Acts digging previously to deal with the previous regime.... did you ever come across this or have any knowledge of how it would play out ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Would take Ashley above the permitted threshold, so not a likely outcome.Unless Ashley is really petty and decides that doing so would hurt Rangers more than him... You wonder if Mr.MASH may have already had arrangements in place with others that allowed him more say and at certain junctures, more control. --------------------------------------- He is power-hungry and uses it in a ruthless manner to get what he wants. It's often his financial wherewithall that he uses as he attempts to squeeze others into doing what he wants. Numerous examples of this can be found during his apparent time involved with Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,194 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Craig - i don't think there's anything in company legislation to prevent MA owning as many shares as he wants in a company but the SFA can exclude that comany's football club from their competitions if MA keeps a relevant holding in another club's company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 And that is the grey area for me, though it is probably due to my limited intelligence. 1. SFA rules prevent him owning more than 10% of the Club due to dual ownership issue. 2. Companies Acts govern incorporated legal entities - I don't think (could be wrong) that they have any such legislation preventing ownership of two different entities. Question is : Does Companies Acts supersede SFA rules ? You would normally say yes. However, in such an instance this would result in the legal entity being non-compliant with its authorities, leaving the legal entity at significant risk, which the Companies Act would be attempting to prevent - so you would have to think that the SFA rules, in this instance, would supersede the Companies Acts - I, for one, would be surprised if the Companies Acts don't at least cover similar instances - I just don't have the time or the inclination to review the Companies Acts to find out. Forlanssister, I know you have done a lot of Companies Acts digging previously to deal with the previous regime.... did you ever come across this or have any knowledge of how it would play out ? I don't think there's anything in the Companies Act. The area that Rangers may be able to use would be to rewrite the Articles of Association. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I don't think there's anything in the Companies Act. The area that Rangers may be able to use would be to rewrite the Articles of Association. Cant re-write the Arts without a super-majority though, correct ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Cant re-write the Arts without a super-majority though, correct ? Yes, believe so. There may be another way depending on whether the FSA is a regulating authority but perhaps that's getting a bit too technical. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Yes, believe so. There may be another way depending on whether the FSA is a regulating authority but perhaps that's getting a bit too technical. You mean the FCA ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 There did not seem to be the same campaigning from the fans groups and forums this time to encourage us all to vote. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 you mean the fca ? sfa. . 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.