[Fredstersafool]

I agree I'm very much guilty of it but I'm also willing to put it to bed.

[Larry-AV]

This Notice concerns AGM resolutions 9, 10 & 11 ... Ashley attempted to block them in Court, failed on 9 & 10 but was successful with Resolution 11. No surprise there, Shareholders' rights under Law are above the SFA's Rules on dual ownership of football clubs !

Rangers FC - Notice To Shareholders

[Larry-AV]

Further to the above, there are two hearings in the Court of Session today, 24/11/2015.

From the CoS Court Roll for 19/11/2015

Thursday 19th November 2015
Issue No. 63
LADY WOLFFE – R Martin, Clerk
Tuesday 24th November
By Order
1  P989/15 Pet: Michael Ashley for Judicial Review  Brodies LLP  Burness Paull LLP
2  P1039/15 Pet: Mash Holdings Ltd for Judicial Review Brodies LLP Anderson Strathern LLP Burness Paull LLP

[hibeejim21]

Lady Wolffe rules she will hold a 2 day hearing on 11 Feb. Rejects SFA/King motion for preliminary diet in December.


Ashley has his judicial review over the SFAs decision to grant king "fit and proper" status.

---

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant
Lady Wolffe says all issues in pleadings should be resolved at first hearing. Two days required to canvas all issues.


STV clarifying by saying the date in February is to sort the applicability of the SFA defences... If they are binned then it's straight to a hearing set for april.

I think !

[supercooper]

Tedious to say the least!

[St Charles Owl]

Anyone care to explain all this in plain English please?? What are these cases for in the first place would be useful as well!!

[Larry-AV]

AGM Resolutions 9 & 10 give authority for the loans from Dave King and the 3 Bears to be converted into equity (shares).
Resolution 11 sought to give the Board authority to strip voting rights from any shareholder who had an interest in another football club. This was to bring Rangers' rules into line with those of the SFA.
Ashley sought to block all three resolutions, but failed on 9 & 10, with 11 up for judicial review.
As I have said though, Shareholders' rights under the Law of the land (Companies Act, etc,) would trump any SFA rule or AGM Resolution. I have also said (here and on RM) that Ashley would be on a winner opposing Resolution 11 in a Court of Law, with Rangers incurring the costs !

[TheWorthinGer]

Rangers don't have to "win" in resolution 11, they just need to be seen to make an effort. This they have done. Acceptable defence against any charge from the SFA.

[hibeejim21]

Anyone care to explain all this in plain English please?? What are these cases for in the first place would be useful as well!!

Ashley is going to run over the top of king,and then reverse over him. Meanwhile the SFA will have to explain their decision making in the court of session. Should be a doddle for Regan who made such a big thing about how exhaustive they were going through kings 'fit and proper' application.... Maybe.

Meanwhile Scottish fitba will likely pay for this farce,in more ways than one.

[supercooper]

How does Scottish football pay for this Jim? If you mean in terms of reputation, well that's laughable it's already a joke.

---

You do realise Ashley pursuing this line of whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean the governing body didn't fulfill their obligation of stringent checks.