Granny Danger Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Indeed. Haven't a number of clubs already declared a potential conflict of interest and acknowledged that they will not vote accordingly? Calls into question 'rangers' being allowed to vote at the SPL meeting on newco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 alex thomson@alextomoBerwick voting D1- their director Brian Porteous has 516 "Rangers" shares. Pure coincidence I'm sure. Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about Because there's some piece of sophistry within the SFA rules saying that at long as the shareholding is not "substantial", then it's OK. Feckin' stinks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Lol big time at big hoose! Would have read much better as 'hame' though imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about In fairness, the shares are in the Oldco. There's no direct financial benefit for shareholders here. That said, the reason is fairly straightforward: the SFA is slightly more corrupt than the average Central American CIA puppet state. Rather than banning chairmen from owning shares in other clubs, we allow them to own up to a 5% stake. Because that's totally normal! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Leitch Loyal Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Surely all "Rangers" shares died with the club? Sevco haven't begun their share issue yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wokcomble Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Because there's some piece of sophistry within the SFA rules saying that at long as the shareholding is not "substantial", then it's OK. Feckin' stinks. They should however do the honourable thing and abstain. Most folk know that the vast majority of shares held by fans in clubs are of emotional value and not for monetry gain. Berwick Rangers - honourable - mibbeez naw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 In fairness, the shares are in the Oldco. There's no direct financial benefit for shareholders here. That said, the reason is fairly straightforward: the SFA is slightly more corrupt than the average Central American CIA puppet state. Rather than banning chairmen from owning shares in other clubs, we allow them to own up to a 5% stake. Because that's totally normal! Tbh, it's always going to be a losing battle... doesn't the bloke Rankine (involved at Livingston with McDougall) also have an interest in Dumbarton (memories hazy on that one), and a major stake-hold in East Fife is held by his schoolgirl niece? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 :lol: He's bound to be taking the piss... surely? Well he did have his playstation in one hand and a curry carry out in the other,with his fishing rod strapped nicely on his back when he made the interview. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Because there's some piece of sophistry within the SFA rules saying that at long as the shareholding is not "substantial", then it's OK. Feckin' stinks. Rangers (Oldco) shares are worth precisely nothing. Doesn't stop you rightfully assuming a certain bias though.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Hopefully this is the case and they can be remembered in 50 years in the same way 3rd lanark are. Fondly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Tbh, it's always going to be a losing battle... doesn't the bloke Rankine (involved at Livingston with McDougall) also have an interest in Dumbarton (memories hazy on that one), and a major stake-hold in East Fife is held by his schoolgirl niece? The SFA suit themselves, it's not long ago a prominent board member had no shares in the club he was representing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Tbh, it's always going to be a losing battle... doesn't the bloke Rankine (involved at Livingston with McDougall) also have an interest in Dumbarton (memories hazy on that one), and a major stake-hold in East Fife is held by his schoolgirl niece? I seem to recall that there are other industries in which such a clear conflict of interest would be unacceptable. What were they again...? ... Oh, yes, that's right: every other industry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Lol big time at big hoose! Would have read much better as 'hame' though imo. Why 'hame'? He had his phone voice on when interviewed and demanded the 'big HOUSE' stay open, not 'hoose'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Fondly? As a cautionary tale told to young football chairmen before they are tucked in for the night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Rangers (Oldco) shares are worth precisely nothing. Doesn't stop you rightfully assuming a certain bias though.. Very true. I wonder how this "chairmens' shares" story would have panned out if they all another club's shares, CelticPLC or even AFC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 May get a bunch of reds for this but I don't see why the fact 1 director held 0.00047% of shares in a liquidating company which moved property/TUPE'd employees to another company that's applying to join SFL, should prevent Berwick Rangers voting on it. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 May get a bunch of reds for this but I don't see why the fact 1 director held 0.00047% of shares in a liquidating company which moved property/TUPE'd employees to another company that's applying to join SFL, should prevent Berwick Rangers voting on it. Presumably there's a moral conflict of interest, if not a legal one. People don't buy shares in football clubs to make money - I have shares in Falkirk (I admit there is a difference as they're not publicly traded) but it's for sentimentality and a way of giving some more cash to the club. It's therefore not unreasonable to assume that there is quite the likelihood that this director bought shares in Rangers because he's a fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Don't see why you'd get reds for that BM. I think it's a fair enough way of seeing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 May get a bunch of reds for this but I don't see why the fact 1 director held 0.00047% of shares in a liquidating company which moved property/TUPE'd employees to another company that's applying to join SFL, should prevent Berwick Rangers voting on it. Ah... the old "not 100% pregnant" argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Rangers (Oldco) shares are worth precisely nothing. Doesn't stop you rightfully assuming a certain bias though.. Wrong again, douchebag. As noted just a few posts back, although the shares might have no monetary value they indicate that the holders of said shares have at least an emotional link to SpivCo and cannot be said to be impartial. So please shove your accusations of bias up your Welsh arse. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.