[Trusevich]

£40k per year. No pay off, no severance fee. He was just a Non-Exec Director, primarily looking after Laxey's interests apparently.

What it means for Laxey I have no idea.

(Obviously, they're clearing out before admin2 hits us and they lose all their money. I'm sure that'll be the line that the rabid doom-mongers will take. )

[supercooper]

Now if only Ally would do the same

[El Car]

Non execs are only really supposed to be on the board for a year or two anyway for good corporate governance. But yeah, since it's us it'll be spun as 'a sign'.

[TheWorthinGer]

"He wants us to take off our shoes too!"

[Larry-AV]

Bejesus, we have a new NOMAD : Rangers FC - Change of Adviser (RNS Number : 6995Z) 12 December 2014  

[Trusevich]

***Craig Whyte Alert!***

No, seriously. The usual mob tried to claim that, because WH Ireland took over the clientèle of a company that went bust that Whyte used to be a director of, that must mean they are in cahoots.

All I can see is Morwenna Banks shouting "It's twoo! It IS!!"

[Larry-AV]

Here we go again :

Skysports - Rangers and Mike Ashley have been accused of breaching SFA rules

I have posted before that Mike Ashley would need to divest from Newcastle to avoid a conflict of interest with Rangers in any future European competition context. But to have an interest in Clubs under different FA jurisdictions, where those Clubs never meet in competition, how can that be wrong ?

I see that 'Red Bulls' have ownership of a team in New York and also Salzburg in Austria, so there is a precedent for one company owning more than one Club.

[St Charles Owl]

Not sure your precedent works in this case Larry!! Those clubs are in different world bodies, one in CONCACAF (?) and one in UEFA. I believe the rules for UEFA prevent ownership in two clubs and I would imagine that the SFA follow those rules. He only owns 9% or so of Rangers, so he has not reached the 10% threshold that the rules have so this is not about ownership as such, it is more about the obvious influence he now has over the running of Rangers since he made the two directors of his choosing a provision of the last loan, this is in direct conflict with the rules, both UEFA and the SFA I believe!!

Its also interesting that Ashley has been charged with doing things that are not in the interest of Association Football!! I wonder if this relates to the horrendous dela on merchandise that he has in place with the club?? Maybe the SFA deem this deal partly responsible for the financial mess at Ibrox, after all if the money from the sale of shirts all went to Rangers, the club would be about 7m+ better off!!

[El Car]

SCO, I wouldn't read too much into the particular charges the SFA level at us. When they get an opportunity to attack us they like to go at it backwards. Instead of realising we've broken a rule and charging us they go through every rule they have and say 'how can we word it so we can do them on this one?'

UEFA's rule is simple, no majority ownership of clubs competing in the same competition defined by a holding of over 50%. And it makes sense because it aims to prevent potential manipulation of those competitions by the owners. The SFA's rule on the other hand is utterly pointless, subjective (oh, huge surprise there) and probably in contravention of EU law.

[Trusevich]

It sure is, El Car, but it won't stop them fining us. They've imposed illegal sanctions on us before, remember.