Jump to content

 

 

Mike Ashley v SFA - Seeking judicial Review


Recommended Posts

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

 

A summary of Tweets by @STVGrant in the morning court session.

 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First part of pm proceedings.

 

 

Court resumes. Ashley's lawyer continues his argument.

 

Court now has copy of the credit facility agreement between MASH and Rangers. Says lender has "right" to appoint two directors to RFCL board

 

The credit facility agreement is signed "for or on behalf of MASH Holdings", the lender, by Mike Ashley

 

Ashley QC questions why no attempt made by SFA to amend charge to make it clearer that it was MASH, of which Ashley is ultimate beneficiary.

 

Ashley QC says the SFA charge says: "You Mike Ashley entered a credit facility with Rangers". Ashley answer was "No I didn't, MASH did".

 

Ashley QC again states SFA charge says "you Mike Ashley entered into a credit agreement with Rangers".

 

The signal gods are defeating the reporting of this case. Will keep trying to plug away.

 

Ashley QC says there are many ways it could be said the charge "could" have been written. But we are here to discuss how it "was" written.

 

Lord Brodie, speaking hypothetically, says compliance officer may have been saying "you as controlling party of MASH entered into agreement"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So are they trying to argue that it's OK for someone to have control over 2 clubs as long as they do it through a company and not an individual basis?

 

It's clear that the for purposes of the rule that the person and the company are the same thing.

 

If it's just down to a quibble as to the SFA's precise wording of the charge and the judge rules that's important and let's Ashley off then just sack the person responsible and the SFA should retry the case with altered wording and fine Ashley..

Link to post
Share on other sites

@STVGrant

 

Derek Llambias says he fell out with Ashley in June 2013. In October '14, he was invited to come and review situation at RFC by David Somers

 

Llambias says he had no football-related conversations at all with Ashley during his tenure at Rangers.

 

David Somers witness statement says until facility agreement signed, relationship with MASH was handled by Wallace and Nash.

 

Somers says he spoke to Ashley and Barnes and one of them suggested inviting Llambias to come and work as a consultant.

 

Somers says Llambias invited Leach to assist. Somers says Wallace had brought in a lot of temporary staff which increased costs.

 

Somers, as only exec director on board at time, appointed Llambias as a non-exec director.

 

Justin Barnes says Paul Shackleton, then Rangers' NOMAD, called about drawdown of funds and asked for the two nominations to the plc board.

 

Barnes told Shackleton asked if Llambias should be considered. Barnes said he was happy to treat Llambias as MASH's first nominee to plc.

 

MASH waived its nomination of a second director to allow drawdown of funds. MASH, says Barnes, had no involvement in Llambias bring CEO

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are expected to believe that Llambias, who claims to have fallen out with Ashley, subsequently received the blessing of MASH to be one of their reps on the Rangers' board.

 

A carefully constructed argument to try and create degrees of separation between MA and the holding co which he owns a majority stake in and which bears his name.

 

Aye right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashley lawyers must have some brass neck to even spout this shite.

 

Events, comment, announcements etc at the time seem to have been arranged in such a way so as they could attempt firstly to avoid the initial SFA ruling and now what would appear somewhat desperately, attempt to overturn it.

 

Looking back, it's interesting to see that the Rangers Chairman (David Somers) and then IIRC 'acting in an executive capacity' seemingly be part of the construction of a 'contingent defence' regards the circumstances behind the appointment of Llambias as a director. You could argue that there are grey areas as to whose interests he was working for in certain matters.

 

What does become more apparent over time is the reasons behind certain actions, spoken words and wording of regulatory notices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.