Jump to content


Photo

SFA seek clarification on Ashley's intentions

mike ashley rangers sfa

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 jaybee

jaybee

    The Don

  • Members
  • 30,370 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 12:42 AM

I know this has been mentioned elsewhere but I reckon it deserves a separate thread.


The Scottish Football Association has written to Rangers and Mike Ashley seeking clarification about his intentions for the Championship club.
Ashley, who owns Newcastle United, has provided Rangers with a £2m loan in return for him having two representatives on the Ibrox board.
He already owns about 9% of Rangers.
However, he has signed an undertaking with the SFA that he will not acquire more than 10% of the shares or have influence at boardroom level.
Ashley's deal, which was agreed on Saturday, has the option of providing Rangers with further loans. It also stipulates that he could underwrite a future share issue.
However, if that were to happen it could take his stake in Rangers International Football Club plc, currently 8.92%, above the 10% threshold if other investors were not sufficiently attracted to the share offer to commit their money.
Presumably, the SFA will want to examine that scenario and look into whether Ashley having two representatives on the Rangers board amounts to a contravention of their agreement that he would not influence its decisions.

Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley agreed a deal with former Rangers chief executive Charles Green to control the Ibrox club's shirt sales
Newcastle play in the Premier League in England, which has no rules on dual ownership, but the Football League does, which would present a problem should Newcastle be relegated.
Uefa would also not allow Newcastle and Rangers to compete in the same European competition if they are effectively owned by the same person.
The English businessman, who owns Sports Direct, has control of Rangers' shirt sales and retail division for the next five years. He does this through Rangers Retail, the company he set up after striking a deal with former Ibrox chief executive Charles Green.
He also owns the naming rights for Ibrox Stadium and, previously, tried to acquire the rights to the Rangers trademark.
Earlier on Monday, Sandy Easdale, chairman of the Rangers football board, welcomed Ashley's loan offer, arguing he could "only see it being a good thing".

Taken from BBC Sport

Follow @sffpodcast on Twitter and send the team a tweet


#2 zander

zander

    Hall Of Fame

  • Members (over 1000 posts)
  • 1,802 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 07:33 AM

He is breaching the agreement but the SFA will do SFA about it. It would cost cash to enforce the rules through the Courts and that is something they don't have. So Rangers will continue to be abused by suits while the SFA pretend that they are doing their jobs, protecting a member Club and it's fans from being ripped off.


Edited by zander, 28 October 2014 - 07:38 AM.


#3 Guest_Goanjock_*

Guest_Goanjock_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2014 - 08:06 AM

I didn't catch the whole ins and out's of it but Radio Scotland on Saturday were basically saying that Mike Ashley would drive a coach through any legal route the SFA decided to restrict is share in Rangers



#4 craig

craig

    Site Owner

  • Administrators
  • 52,394 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 12:25 PM

As far as I understand it, Ashley was given permission by the SFA to own up to 10% of Rangers. If he wanted to own more than that, he would have to once again ask for permission. The SFA seeking clarification seems like the logical thing to do.

 

He is breaching the agreement but the SFA will do SFA about it. It would cost cash to enforce the rules through the Courts and that is something they don't have. So Rangers will continue to be abused by suits while the SFA pretend that they are doing their jobs, protecting a member Club and it's fans from being ripped off.

Technically he hasn't increased his stake, so hasn't broken a rule. If the SFA don't grant him permission to go above 10%, and he does, there may be ramifications. Or, as you say, they may simply grant permission because they know fine well that they won't be able to stop him.



#5 Psychoheart

Psychoheart

    aka Krys on the SFF Podcast

  • Moderator
  • 6,474 posts

Posted 28 October 2014 - 12:31 PM

He is breaching the agreement but the SFA will do SFA about it. It would cost cash to enforce the rules through the Courts and that is something they don't have. So Rangers will continue to be abused by suits while the SFA pretend that they are doing their jobs, protecting a member Club and it's fans from being ripped off.

 

They made a rod for their own back the day they approved Rangers with zero accounting history when the rules clearly stated you need at least three years worth. It was utterly bizarre to accept the accounts of a completely different, and by that point failed, company as the historical accounts. You may as well say that Rangers used three years of Barcelona's accounts if that's the case. So if the SFA had followed their own rules on that day in 2012 then they'd have refused that application and moved on with Rangers going down the Gretna route (they only got their SFA license at the end of last year after starting again in 2008)

 

Their rules of ownership are pretty flaky by comparison. The fit and proper rules have always been farcical when all you really have to do is write a letter to them confirming you're fit and proper. This agreement that Ashley has with them is actually unnecessary too! However, with it in place, you would have to prove that he's breached it and I don't think that's possible. He definitely doesn't have 10% or more of the shares, and the "influence at board level" is a subjective issue at best. As a shareholder he can nominate anyone he wants, but that doesn't mean he has influence over them. Strictly speaking, I could nominate someone to be on the Celtic board!

 

All of those issues aside, as a Celtic fan I hope you all keep up your attacks on him. Of the three recent options for the club I reckon he's the best choice. Dave King is a tyre-kicking tax dodger who is all mouth and no action, Brian Kennedy is an expert at turning up at the last second with no real intention of doing anything but just likes to get his name out there as "the guy who tried". Ashley might not be universally liked at Newcastle, but he runs a tight ship to certain goals. In a league of mental spending, Newcastle keep to a budget - and that is EXACTLY  what Rangers need right now. Idiots like Dave King who talk about throwing stupid money about are precisely the reason Rangers went into administration and liquidation in 2012, precisely the reason a £22 million share issue was pissed against a wall, and precisely the reason Rangers are going cap in hand for loans to keep the doors open in 2014.


Edited by Psychoheart, 28 October 2014 - 12:33 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mike ashley, rangers, sfa

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users