RIFC

Larry-AV · 23-12-2014, 00:52

I am not going to bother posting the stories on SSN (and others) regarding the AGM, it has been on the news all day.

This is how the voting went : Rangers FC - Result of AGM - 22/12/2014

Larry-AV · 24-12-2014, 15:18

SSN has just reported that the SFA has 'unanimously' rejected Rangers' request to let Mike Ashley increase his shareholding to 29.9%.

Nothing on the websites (Rangers or SSN) as yet.

**El Car** · 24-12-2014, 19:11

xxxx us over again. They might as well just boot us out the association now since the SFA is pretty actively trying to kill us off. No good reason on Earth why Ashley shouldn't hold a non-controlling interest in Rangers.

Fredstersafool · 24-12-2014, 19:31

Pretty sure rangers signed up to the rules like the other clubs so how you fucked over,think the powers at ibrox gave done there best to kill yer club £70m gone through the doors in two years suggests that

Trusevich · 24-12-2014, 20:38

Board say they are going to consider 'all their options'. Thankfully there are plenty of options available to them, and Ashley.

Begs the question though, if Mike Ashley is not allowed to have undue interference in the running of two clubs, how come members of the SFA panel are allowed to do so?

Fredstersafool · 24-12-2014, 20:46

Who on the board own shares in two clubs?

**El Car** · 24-12-2014, 20:55

Irrelevant question there. The SFA has already set the precedent of considering influence to have nothing to do with shareholdings. Maybe we should be looking at the fact that so many members of SPFL and SFA boards hold power at specific clubs, but also hold direct influence over all other clubs that fall within their board remit.

Fredstersafool · 24-12-2014, 21:01

There's no rules against that so irrelevant,as I said rangers and all the other clubs signed up to the current rules so live with it

**El Car** · (This post was last modified: 24-12-2014, 21:17 by El Car.)

(24-12-2014, 19:31)Fredstersafool Wrote: Pretty sure rangers signed up to the rules like the other clubs so how you fucked over,think the powers at ibrox gave done there best to kill yer club £70m gone through the doors in two years suggests that

The rule is that influence over 2 clubs is permitted as long as it has the consent of the SFA. There's no reason Mike Ashley having a 30% shareholding would have any detrimental impact on Scottish football in any way. On the other hand, unless he underwrites the share issue we'll probably end up in administration again and either disappear completely or go through 2012 all over again. The statement issued by the SFA offered no suggestion as to why the latter that would be considered better for the Scottish game, and unless they elaborate on that decision I'm going to assume based on past form that they're a bunch of liars who have made a decision to suit their own ends rather than an impartial one.

(24-12-2014, 21:01)Fredstersafool Wrote: There's no rules against that so irrelevant,as I said rangers and all the other clubs signed up to the current rules so live with it

It's not irrelevant to your question. A board member doesn't need to have shares to influence the running of a club. Unless the SFA has documented written permission for the various association and league board members to hold both a board position with the relevant body and an individual club, it's in breach of its own rules.

Not even worth going into how many times the SFA and league board members have been in breach of rule 77, by the way.

Fredstersafool · 24-12-2014, 21:54

Ok then the SFA have seen fit not to allow it as is there want,maybe just maybe they actually think he's not good fir the Scottish game enter Mr King?looking at the leaked email it looks like the board members have an interest I'm only themselves along with Ashley and give not a xxxx jot about your club this could be influencing there decision.