killingfloorman Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 No I am not kidding, You do realise that the club had 2 other confirmed offers of finance, it did make virtually every news source. Why would Rangers fans celebrate the arrival of a man who is creaming off our best retail profits, gaining free advertising and demanding our IP be signed over to him? the same man who is now flaunting the SFA rules by forcing his influence into the running of our club and threatening legal action if any other offer was accepted? Those other offers were mirages just like the last time Kennedy got involved. King has never really put his money where his mouth is. It was Ashley or bust in my opinion (i'm sure you feel otherwise!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Which part of Zombie FC constitutes the "club" or the company that the SFA deal with as the legal entity in regards to it's rules? Sevco or RIFC or does the SFA believe that both companies (the complete structure) are the club? Zombie FC may also argue that as far as footballing decisions go MA has no influence whatsoever (those are hived off and part of Sevco) hence his involvement is simply commerce and business. Additionally any conflict of interest in footballing terms is already governed. European competition is already covered by it's own rules and as there is no possible conflict of interest in Scotland as Newcastle and The Zombies are unlikely to meet in any Scottish competition any time soon. No other footballing association has such a mickey mouse rule regarding owning shares in footballing entities outwith their own wee pond. Of course MA will run rings around the SFA .. totally agreed since they are the idiots who constructed the rules to encompass teams globally across the world or did they?. Rules are normally written to apply in the vacuum of their own jurisdiction ..... You're making it far more complicated than it actually is. Ogilvies own words : “Fundamentally, the undertaking was not to go above the 10 per cent shareholding – and not to have influence in the running of the club. On the back of the movement last week we’ve written to him asking for more information.” He's just appointed a director to the board, yet the SFA want more information before deciding whether or not he has any "influence in the running of the club". Put it another way, what could Ashley say to the SFA to prove he didnt have any influence running the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 In the past Densboy used to get his info from Paul McC... , then come on here and pretend that he was an expert... DhenBhoy October 10, 2013 at 4:06 pm Paul what is your view regarding Mr. King, the SFA, SFPL, Rangers and the ‘fit and proper person’ rule now. He has been to court and accepted a plea sentencing (fine) for an act that has a potential 24 month jail sentence. -------------------------------- I wonder who he gets help from now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Surely the regulatory requirements refers to the company side not the SFA? As I said, the Somers stuff was about being appointed a consultant. The announcement of his appointment to the stock exchange specifically refers to MASH holdings exercising their right as part of the loan agreement. Ashley has quite clearly, in public, broken the agreement he had with the SFA. Frankly, I couldnt care less but the fact that the SFA are still scrabbling around writing to him asking for further information is laughable. Lets be honest, Ashleys lawyers will run rings round the SFA whatever happens The SFA need to be strong here, they can't allow Ashley to ride rough shod over them. Also an SFA with Peter Lawwell in a prominent position will be a different prospect than Regans usual bumbling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) Which company "is" the club .. or the legal entity referred to in that agreement? It's a simple question and one his lawyers would ask as will any judge in a court of law. a) it doesnt matter, and if it did its something the SFA would already know and wouldnt have to ask Ashley about b) we're not talking about legalities, we're talking about the SFA actions As I said, what answer can Ashley give that would satisfy anyone that appointing a director wasnt influencing the running of the club Edited November 4, 2014 by Mr X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 They already have it in writing. The announcement to the stock exchange was pretty clear that Ashley got to appoint two board members for his £2m loan Fair doos, forgot about stock exchange releases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 a) it doesnt matter, and if it did its something the SFA would already know and wouldnt have to ask Ashley about b) we're not talking about legalities, we're talking about the SFA actions As I said, what answer can Ashley give that would satisfy anyone that appointing a director wasnt influencing the running of the club Should we not wait to see what he says before giving him ideas? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Should we not wait to see what he says before giving him ideas? If anyone, from either side of the fence, thinks that Ashley doesnt have all of this planned out right to the end game then they are kidding themselves 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Which company "is" the club .. or the legal entity referred to in that agreement? It's a simple question and one his lawyers would ask as will any judge in a court of law. The 10% refers to RIFC ... but that is not the club. According to what is written he has agreed to the 10% AND not to have influence in the running of the club. Whether on not he has directors on board RIFC ... he can still comply with the latter. The footballing affairs of the club are a separate issue. The club is Sevco 5088 Sevco Scotland The Zombie FC Ltd. The SFA in a court of law when challenged cannot simply say aye but what we meant is ... The board of directors from RIFC can simply write sworn statements claiming they will not allow MA to make any decisions in regards to Zombie FC (footballing matters) and they have complied .. MA will have done his homework prior to pushing the button ... the SFA can squeal but that's about it ... I see you've answered in your edit. The board in question, though, is the RFCL board, not the PLC one. I also think you're drawing a line where there isnt one. Theres nothing in the agreement which means "footballing matters". Theres more to the club than just that and to try and suggest a director of a holding company has no influence on the subsidiary isnt really believable. Not that it matters as Ashley has appointed someone to the club board. The outcome of this will, undoubtedly, come out in Ashleys favour but the SFA have more than enough information to act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Then he simply points to the agreement tells them I have not broken the 10% and I will stand by my word ... What will the SFA point to that breaks the agreement since RIFC is not the club? He could even reply .. eh whit ye talking aboot? See above - he has appointed a director the the RFCL board not the RIFC one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Stewart Regan got played buttff*cked like a cheap fiddle hooker by Château Chuckie, he doesn't have a hope against Ashley. FTFY. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 You're making it far more complicated than it actually is. Ogilvies own words : He's just appointed a director to the board, yet the SFA want more information before deciding whether or not he has any "influence in the running of the club". Put it another way, what could Ashley say to the SFA to prove he didnt have any influence running the club? "A big boy done it and run away." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Did they add yon boy as a director or consultant? I thought I read consultant on the article, which would make an interesting point given the rules regarding directors of insolvent companies being unable to be director of any future newco for a time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Don't normally follow links to sites like that but there are a few belters like above on that thread. So a QC thinks you're a new club, that'll be two of them now eh HB Indeed , noo wurs me pipe n slippers to have a wee banter and giggle wi Donny and the boys fae the bar. All of the legal beagles and experts know it's a fucking new club, it's just that the SFA done a sterling job in conning the orcs who need to believe that somehow a deid club is the same club. There isn't a scrap of legal evidence anywhere that the club survived financial insolvency on the planet although you'll find plenty of pish from the SFA claiming to them it's still the very same member because they gave a new club a dead clubs SFA licence and allowed them to steal the dead clubs identity, so that's identity theft now on the list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) I see McCoist might be looking to have next weeks match with Alloa called off. Will probably end up with a thread of its own, but I can't be arsed starting one myself, to many Rangers threads on my content page http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoists-call-off-duty-for-rangers-187136n.25772039 Edited November 4, 2014 by CityDave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Is hellboy rattling for a drink in yer cupboard? You have an unnerving obsession with alcohol young man, that'll explain your terrible grammar & spelling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 You'd probably lose ... Ah, missed out that e 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I thought he was appointed as a non exec, so officially he has nothing to do with the day to day running of things, the non exec thing was deliberate IMO. But unofficially ?, Ashley now has eyes and ears in the boardroom shenanigans. Just wait till Ashley makes another move to have his own chief executive running the club on Ashley's behalf. Feeder club for Newcastle Utd duds and your club will be paying their wages as well helping out Newcastle Utd's financial mess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 Ohhh ... I thought it was just stupidity. There's that as well, there's no end to F_B's many learning difficulties, I blame Tedi & Bennett for the poor boys gradual decline in communication skills since joining P&B. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I see McCoist might be looking to have next weeks match with Alloa called off. Will probably end up with a thread of its own, but I can't be arsed starting one myself, to many Rangers threads on my content page http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoists-call-off-duty-for-rangers-187136n.25772039 Lets allow Hearts another chance to increase their lead. 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.