SD halt action against Rangers

[Anchorman 0]

[tweet]695183876340203520[/tweet]

 

Is he maybe just taking a different approach and choosing his battles at the moment. If he takes on the SFA and wins does that leave us vulnerable again (I ask the question out of ignorance rather than pretending I know what the hell the ramifications are because I'm lost with the whole business)?

[Scott7 5,145]

I don't think the SFA fight will affect Rangers.

 

To reduce the onerous contracts you would have to prove collusive fraud between the company's director/employee/agent and the other contracting party. To expand on Bluedell's admirable example, it would be necessary to show that wee Jeannie was giving a percentage to the director's backmpocket. Either that or the fact that wee Jeannie kent fine the particular director had no authority to procure the company's milk supplies.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I don't think the SFA fight will affect Rangers.

 

To reduce the onerous contracts you would have to prove collusive fraud between the company's director/employee/agent and the other contracting party. To expand on Bluedell's admirable example, it would be necessary to show that wee Jeannie was giving a percentage to the director's backmpocket. Either that or the fact that wee Jeannie kent fine the particular director had no authority to procure the company's milk supplies.

 

If it can be proven by the SFA in today's judicial revue brought by Ashley, that he indeed had a dual interests in the Rangers board. Plus it could prove further the influence he had on the board, that might help the club prove he had undue influence in the drafting of the totally one sided contracts.

[govan_derriere 3]

Account of morning proceedings in Ashley v SFA.

 

Reported by @STVGrant

 

Mike Ashley takes on @scottishfa at Court of Session this morning. Seeking judicial review of decision to fine him over dual interest breach

 

Lord Brodie allows tweeting from Sports Direct v @Scottishfa. And we are off and running.

 

Ashley lawyer outlines case refers to his client breaching SFA rule on dual interest. Court now to hear that rule recited in full.

 

Rule on dual interest read out detailing that a person cannot influence management of a club when directly involved in another.

 

SFA Article 13.1 also being read out. Ashley lawyer says same matters are set out in this article.

 

Ashley lawyer reads out original note of complaint. States that credit facility led to MASH nominating Llambias to Rangers board.

 

Lord Brodie: As I understand the name Rangers comes at us from a number of directions. Ashley lawyer points out this refers to RFCLtd.

 

SFA Lawyer interrupts. Says Rangers FC in this matter is the "club, the entity, it is not a synonym for RFC Ltd."

 

The limited company and plc are manifestations of the club, says SFA QC.

 

Ashley QC states that RIFC plc is not a member of the SFA. Says Ashley is not a shareholder in RFC Ltd, which is the member.

 

Ashley QC says MASH held a minority stake in RIFC plc at time of complaint.

 

Ashley QC says there is jurisdiction in this court to entertain the complaint by means of judicial review process.

 

Ashley QC now explaining to Lord Brodie how the SFA's judicial panel protocol works.

 

Ashley QC says this is a private law judicial review and they have no dispute over that.

 

I tweeted earlier this is Sports Direct v @scottishfa. Of course, it isn't. It's Mike Ashley v @ScottishFA.

 

Ashley QC points out SFA article which doesn't permit members to go to court of law. Argues Ashley is not an SFA "member" as per definition

 

Ashley QC going through precedents and elements of the SFA articles.

 

Court now look at letter from Ashley to SFA in 2012 telling them in full of his role at Newcastle United

 

Ashley letter also says he agrees to abide by SFA rules for as long as he is shareholder of RFC Ltd

 

2012 Ashley letter to SFA also tells them of his intention to become a shareholder of RFC Ltd, which owns and operates Rangers.

 

QC continuing to outline argument Ashley is not a "member" of SFA as per their definitions, with regard to ability to bring this to court

 

Ashley QC then points out by Nov/Dec 2014 he was no longer shareholder of RFC Ltd. Instead MASH was shareholder in RIFC plc

 

Current Ashley argument revolves entirely around his capability to take this matter to court, despite SFA rules on doing so.

 

QC says Ashley never agreed to become a member of the SFA or to be treated as a member of the SFA in 2012 letter.

 

Some mild commotion and shaking of heads from the SFA side when it is repeated that RFC Ltd is the member. Clarification later, perhaps.

 

Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers.

 

Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers.

 

Ashley QC continuing to go through SFA articles which he says do not apply to his client, should the SFA go on to say they do.

 

Ashley QC says he will go on to explain position that SFA panel made decision without any clear evidence.

 

Ashley QC continuing to refer to precedent on ability of court to deal with this matter by means of judicial review.

 

Ashley QC says SFA assert that Ashley is using this as another means of appeal. Ashley QC says that is not the case.

 

Ashley QC says he is not asking the court to rehear the substantive issues dealt with.

 

Ashley QC says court is being asked to perform a different function than the SFA panel or appellate tribunal.

 

Ashley QC says if a player had acted violently, it would be difficult to come here and argue a panel decision couldn't have been arrived at

 

Lord Brodie asks if it is a legitimate question as to who was on the disciplinary panel.

 

Ashley QC also calls into question how it can be decided Llambias being on board gave Ashley power to influence management of Rangers.

 

Ashley QC says he fails to see how anyone in "the football business" would have any insight into how Llambias came to be on Rangers board

 

Ashley QC setting out argument that the notice of complaint was solely against Mike Ashley, the individual.

 

Ashley QC says it wasn't Ashley who entered into credit facility with Rangers, it was MASH Holdings Limited.

 

Ashley QC says when such a specific charge is levied on breach of a particular rule, the scope of punishment should be limited solely to it.

 

Ashley QC says the charge is clear. That Ashley entered into a credit facility with Rangers. His answer to the panel was clear: no I didn't.

 

Ashley says he signed the credit facility solely as an agent of MASH. And it was MASH who entered into the agreement with Rangers.

 

Ashley QC argues charge could have said you Mr Ashley caused MASH to enter facility with Rangers.

 

Lord Brodie questions the fact Ashley's holding in Newcastle is through MASH.

 

Ashley QC questions how MASH being a "creditor" of Rangers would then give him power to influence the management of the club.

 

Lord Brodie says the question will ultimately come down to what "distinction" there is between MASH and Mike Ashley.

 

Ashley QC repeats that the charge is a direct accusation that Ashley entered into credit facility with Rangers, not MASH.

 

Ashley QC states there was no copy of the credit agreement. To which Lord Brodie replies: "I shouldn't be surprised".

 

As we break for lunch I'd like to pay particular tribute to @ThreeUK for the sudden lack of signal inside most buildings over the last week.

[buster. 4,808]

Thanks GD !

 

Perhaps better in a seperate thread for later reference.

[pete 2,499]

There is no copy of the credit facility? What is that for claptrap.