Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

Livi also have an SFA hearing about dual interests of club ownership (aside from the SPFL one that resulted in today's punishment)-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo..._campaign=1490

Although Ashley's got less than 10% shares, article 13 of the SFA Handbook seems to suggest that "any influence in management or administration" of a club counts as an "interest" in a club. Can't seem to get link to the PDF posted, but it seems broader than just shares and strict ownership of a club.

Was wondering if having a club dependent on loans, or having a guy in the boardroom, would count as an "influence in management or administration"? (The rule includes influence through an associate).

It mentions shareholdings of 3% or more, but also that "prior written consent of the board" can be given for dual interest cases. Was also wondering if this was the basis for the 10% agreement Ashley and the SFA were reported to have?

Also says in article 13 that the SFA have the power to find out who the shareholders of a club are, which seems to have be a matter for debate in the The Rangers case.

---

I don't think there is the appetite at SFA to go digging and get there hands dirty again Seems to me that it's turn a blind eye and get them back up as soon as .
The whole saga now has been dragging on for so long that we have become immune to all there skullduggery So much for Transparency and sound financial governance . they are a Shambles of a Club and there must be more twists and turns to come .They seem prepared to do anything rather than sell a player This Transfer Window will be interesting to see what they do or don't do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

I don't think there is the appetite at SFA to go digging and get there hands dirty again Seems to me that it's turn a blind eye and get them back up as soon as .
The whole saga now has been dragging on for so long that we have become immune to all there skullduggery So much for Transparency and sound financial governance . they are a Shambles of a Club and there must be more twists and turns to come .They seem prepared to do anything rather than sell a player This Transfer Window will be interesting to see what they do or don't do

---

The Weegie press are bumming-up Lewis Mcleod for the English Premership this morning. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Weegie press are bumming-up Lewis Mcleod for the English Premership this morning. :confused:

---

Be fair the journos have to earn their Christmas lunch somehow. :greengrin

Talking about the English premiership, that Yam lad that went to Swansea , has he ever been heard of again ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

The Weegie press are bumming-up Lewis Mcleod for the English Premership this morning. :confused:

---

Maybe join Fleck at Coventry - think they're in the Premiership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Talking about the English premiership, that Yam lad that went to Swansea , has he ever been heard of again ?

---

In the under 21 squad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

In the under 21 squad

---

Was there any add-ons to the sale ?

If so is it due to the creditors or Mrs Budge ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Was there any add-ons to the sale ?

If so is it due to the creditors or Mrs Budge ?

---

I think that it will be the current club. It's the flip-side of the "football creditors" scenario, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Was there any add-ons to the sale ?

If so is it due to the creditors or Mrs Budge ?

---

No idea on both counts, but would assume certainly would be add ons for a young player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

Livi also have an SFA hearing about dual interests of club ownership (aside from the SPFL one that resulted in today's punishment)-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo..._campaign=1490

Although Ashley's got less than 10% shares, article 13 of the SFA Handbook seems to suggest that "any influence in management or administration" of a club counts as an "interest" in a club. Can't seem to get link to the PDF posted, but it seems broader than just shares and strict ownership of a club.

Was wondering if having a club dependent on loans, or having a guy in the boardroom, would count as an "influence in management or administration"? (The rule includes influence through an associate).

It mentions shareholdings of 3% or more, but also that "prior written consent of the board" can be given for dual interest cases. Was also wondering if this was the basis for the 10% agreement Ashley and the SFA were reported to have?

Also says in article 13 that the SFA have the power to find out who the shareholders of a club are, which seems to have be a matter for debate in the The Rangers case.

---

There's no question that Ashley has influence at Rangers. He forced the CEO out and his people are now effectively running the club. The only question is whether the SFA are going to do anything about it. At the moment they look like Neville Chamberlain: 'I have in my hand a piece of paper'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I think that it will be the current club. It's the flip-side of the "football creditors" scenario, IMO.

---

I'm no expert , but would an add-on not be part of a contract entered into pre-admin. and therefor due to pre-admin. creditors.

Whatever the correct way, I'm sure Jackson will deem the money due to the current residents of the Gorgie asylum.

Robin.p ... any thoughts ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I'm no expert , but would an add-on not be part of a contract entered into pre-admin. and therefor due to pre-admin. creditors.

Whatever the correct way, I'm sure Jackson will deem the money due to the current residents of the Gorgie asylum.

Robin.p ... any thoughts ?

---

In the normal way of business and insolvency, yep I'd agree.

However, the football-debt process isn't part of that normal process either. That's why I think it's the other side of that coin.

Were I a creditor, I'd be wanting the money in the pot. But, since none of the unsecured creditors are getting anything, it's academic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

There's no question that Ashley has influence at Rangers. He forced the CEO out and his people are now effectively running the club. The only question is whether the SFA are going to do anything about it. At the moment they look like Neville Chamberlain: 'I have in my hand a piece of paper'.

---

Not sure they really can do anything about it.

His shareholding is <10% at the moment therefore not on their radar and even if he takes it over that figure it's only a 'gentleman's agreement' re dual ownership of clubs. Mike Ashley is many things in his business life, a gentleman is not one of them however.

Report on Craig Whyte's 15 year directorship disqualification.


http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?ar...mail_access=on

Love the reference to his Tixway company.

" the accountancy information was so inadequate , the liquidator was unable to discover what type of business, if any, the company operated ".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Love the reference to his Tixway company.

" the accountancy information was so inadequate , the liquidator was unable to discover what type of business, if any, the company operated ".

---

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...onaire-1076110

:devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...onaire-1076110

:devil:

---

Rangers fans are forever grateful that SDM stood by his promise to only sell the club to the 'right people.'

Where is Craig Whyte? Presumably there is still an arrest warrant out for him? I imagined he was on the run with Chuckie Green but maybe he's hiding behind a false wall at his castle, being very quiet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...onaire-1076110

:devil:

---

Thanks for that.

Always cheers me up.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...sold-1-3543017

The castle's gone. Whyte will be in some off-shore haven with no extradition. Pitcairn Island ! :greengrin

Its not like he has'nt seen this coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...sold-1-3543017

The castle's gone. Whyte will be in some off-shore haven with no extradition. Pitcairn Island ! :greengrin

Its not like he has'nt seen this coming.

---

Off the radar, you mean? :wink:

£1m seems like a bargain for a place like that, although grand Scottish houses don't seem to sell so well these days. Also sounds like he vandalised the place when clearing out.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile...0032n.25969185

This article seems to imply that Ashley has exceeded the terms of his agreement with the SFA.
Let's see if the SFA do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile...0032n.25969185

This article seems to imply that Ashley has exceeded the terms of his agreement with the SFA.
Let's see if the SFA do anything about it.

---

The SFA rule (article 13) states that influence through an "associate" (pretty broadly defined) counts in terms of dual interests, even though Ashley may not have exceeded the share limit agreed. LLambias is on the board and is an associate and friend of Ashley, but as you and others mention, whether they implement their own rules is another matter. There's provision for them not applying the rules in the actual rule!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

The SFA rule (article 13) states that influence through an "associate" (pretty broadly defined) counts in terms of dual interests, even though Ashley may not have exceeded the share limit agreed. LLambias is on the board and is an associate and friend of Ashley, but as you and others mention, whether they implement their own rules is another matter. There's provision for them not applying the rules in the actual rule!

---

Your last sentence is the key one ,it just shouldn't be there imo but it is and probably with this very scenario in mind Maybe being too cynical but am still not convinced The SFA have the appetite to take this issue on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronniekirk

Your last sentence is the key one ,it just shouldn't be there imo but it is and probably with this very scenario in mind Maybe being too cynical but am still not convinced The SFA have the appetite to take this issue on

---

There's an SFA hearing just now about Livi and dual interests (end of article), might be interesting to see how it compares with the SFA/Ashley situation-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo..._campaign=1490

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/incomin...-major-4703408

The Mexicans have got craigy boy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I'm no expert , but would an add-on not be part of a contract entered into pre-admin. and therefor due to pre-admin. creditors.

Whatever the correct way, I'm sure Jackson will deem the money due to the current residents of the Gorgie asylum.

Robin.p ... any thoughts ?

---

I would certainly say yes, it should be paid to the insolvency, but as Crops has said with the football creditor rules it might not - I wouldn't dare hang my hat on either!

So, Craigy Boy arrested and SDM and Walter Smith called to give evidence.


This could get interesting


:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

So, Craigy Boy arrested and SDM and Walter Smith called to give evidence.


This could get interesting


:greengrin

---

Wisnae me!!

A big boy did it and ran away!!:wink:

I didn't realise Craigie Boy had two warrants out for his arrest - one relating to possible fraudulent activity around the take over, and the other for repeated failings to attend court in his battle with Ticketus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomoseven

I didn't realise Craigie Boy had two warrants out for his arrest - one relating to possible fraudulent activity around the take over, and the other for repeated failings to attend court in his battle with Ticketus.

---

... and the SFA are also trying to get their unpaid fines (for bringing the game into disrepute, was it? Surely not!)