hellbhoy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Wrong again He asked the SFA for permission to buy more shares - this is well documented The SFA turned him down - this is well documented Mike Ashley also provided a £2m loan `English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer.` This was Ashley influencing the club Llambias and Leech then arrived Once again Ashley influencing the club and from this point onwards. Rule 19 does not state anything about increasing shareholdings, the SFA had dealt with that matter separately and Fat Mike complied. Rule 19 again "Disciplinary Rule 19: Except with the prior written consent of the board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (b) no person, 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), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (b) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or © have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club." You are a fucking idiot of the highest magnitude at times. Which part of my post didn't you understand about the club asking for Ashley's stake to be increased ?, which part of the club being fined for dual interests didn't you comprehend either ?, which part of Somers inviting Llambias & Leach into the club didn't you understand either ?, Llambias & Leach weren't nominated by Ashley you idiot. If Llambias & Leach were Ashley's henchmen, then why didn't the SFA asked to have them removed as influencing the club in Ashley's favour ? You keep quoting and citing the rules dopey, but the facts are clear that when the club itself without Llmabias & Leach even remotely connected to the club at that time asked the SFA themselves to increase Ashley's shareholding breaching their rules & regulations at that point. The SFA rules were breached when the club asked to have Ashley's share percentage increased from the 10% the SFA were happy with to 25% which gave Ashley the controlling stake in the club. That was the breach and not the shite your posting about Llambias & Leach authorising loans with strings attached. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I keep quoting the rules because that is what the SFA did you moron. It had nothing to do with Ashley asking the SFA if he could purchase more shares. Ashley didn't ask the SFA you demented idiot, your club did. This is why the club was fined and is the reason why Ashley got fined as well. The club and Ashley were working together and why both were fined and has fcuk all to do with Llambias & Leach. You have lost the plot through the time line with your goldfish memory trying to rewrite history. Llambia & Leach were never appointed to the Rangers board by Ashley himself, Somers invited them to Rangers himself. Do you want to now claim that Somers is now Ashley's henchman ? You have put 2+2 together and came up with 5. Quote the rules all you want but make sure you apply them legally and not to what you think. I haven't found one scrap from the media on the internet that specifically apportions the dual interests by having Llambias & Leach at Ibrox, bearing in mind that Somers invited them to Ibrox and not Ashley. They do however keep quoting Ashley's proposed share increase to 25% by the club as the reason for breaching dual interests because it would have given Ashley the controlling stake at Ibrox and would have directly influenced the club by shareholding. But I'm sure you'll hold onto that myth it's because of Llambias & Leach influencing Rangers on Ashley's behalf even though they were invited in by Somers himself. The dual interests have fcul all to do with Llambias & Leach because Ashley didn't appoint them, and Somers has publicly stated he invited them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Again, I quoted the rules because that is what the SFA did when they found Ashley guilty, all your batshit crazy rantings will not change that. So you have now changed your approach from blaming Llambias & Leach influencing loan deals with strings attached, to ?, well the SFA have found him guilty and fined him ??? So you didn't find any media related source blaming Llambias & Leach for breaching the dual interests charge then ? So you argued with me that it's because of L&L over the last two pages only to find out you made a cnut out of yourself again ?, well done five stars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4roon Pl4toon Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 It's almost like we are back to the start when Rangers went bust the first time. Potless Paul and King on the board and Ashley (the Bank of Scotland rep) sitting down for an eye to eye. Remind me who won? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 No, I have not changed anything. Mike Ashley was fined and found guilty of influencing the running of Rangers football club under rule 19 of the the rules, confirmed by the SFA. He used Llambias and Leech to exercise that influence. All your pish about being fat mike being found guilty because he wanted to buy more shares is still just plain old pish. I want an SFA released statement from you blaming Llambias & Leach as exercising Ashley's dual interests. All they have released is that Ashley is guilty of influencing a dual interest, the rest you are making up as I have posted Somers invited L&L into the club so therefore cannot be legally deemed as Ashley's henchmen. Also dopey you keep deliberately missing that both the club & Ashley were fined, and the only time that these two are mentioned together is way back in October 2014 when the club asked the SFA to increase Ashley's share stake to allow Ashley to have a controlling stake in RIFC which breached their rules and were subsequently fined. And yet you still haven't produced anything from the media accusing, blaming or apportioning anything towards L&L being on The Rangers board have you. Because it does not exist anywhere other than in your tiny deluded mind. It's simple just like you but it is just too simply complicated for you to comprehend, Rangers asked to allow Ashley a 25% stake in RIFC. The SFA didn't like it and punished the club and Ashley for seeking to breach the associations rules on dual ownership by allowing Rangers permission to allow Ashley the controlling stake in the club by shares. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Not really fussed either way but my faint recollection of events matches Tedi's rather than dhen or HB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 So what if it was, what rule does that break? Share price manipulation rules. Criminal offence 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Then we are all guilty, every man and his dug was calling for a ST boycott, also if I recall correctly the share price rose. You can't be so stupid to not see the difference between "every man and his dug" and "person trying to buy the company". Got to be on the wind up. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Did Rangers fans collectively not end up with more than King? Why would that matter? "Rangers fans collectively" are not a single entity. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Using the St.mirren fans logic we were all trying to lower the share price though. 14% (king) does not equate to buying the company either. 1 of the largest shareholders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Using the St.mirren fans logic we were all trying to lower the share price though. 14% (king) does not equate to buying the company either. Yes but since you aren't a single entity it's irrelevant. Each individual would have to be prosecuted on their own and while you could make a case that the sevco loyal listen to Dave King and therefore him calling for a boycott would be effective you'd have to be some kind of nutter to think Big Rab fae Bridgeton calling for a boycott would have much of an effect. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I don't seem to remember Sports Direct or MASH forcing Sevco to enter into legally binding agreements. I must have nodded off. It was negotiated by Don Corleone. They don't talk about these things - apart from when they threaten to piss all over commercial confidentiality. Squeak! Squeak! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Fanny Yes please. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 You can't be so stupid to not see the difference between "every man and his dug" and "person trying to buy the company". Got to be on the wind up. Never put down to malice what you can put down to stupidity 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I thought Ashley interest was in the company, not the club? I was just looking at the posts on Orcmeeja concerning the EGM. In general they have no clue as to Company/Club differences. Not surprised really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Not really fussed either way but my faint recollection of events matches Tedi's rather than dhen or HB. Yes, mine too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Why would that matter? "Rangers fans collectively" are not a single entity. Thankfully. If they were, their combined stench would kill half the world and their combined mass would be sufficient to make the sun orbit the earth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Then we are all guilty, every man and his dug was calling for a ST boycott, also if I recall correctly the share price rose. I'd be happy if every Rangers supporting man and dug was fined and jailed for it. Hands up who agrees with me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 As a relative outsider to this thread, it looks to me like King is looking for an excuse to minimise on the promises he made. What better smokescreen than to pick a fight with a guy that can tie the club (company?) up in court for years and who won't back down. "Yes I would like to invest more in Rangers but until this matter with Mr Ashley and MASH is resolved...." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 So let me get this straight, the SFA won't allow The Rangers to pay back Ashley in case that influences them. 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.