(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.