Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[Fred_Zeppelin]

http://scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14110

Something's happening, isn't it?

[ShedTA]

I guess the sfa could fine them . If they go to court refuse to pay then the licence can be withdrawn. It's basically like a club with all members agreeing to the rules. The rules don't have to be law as such do they?

[thplinth]

Financially Ashley is a colossus compared to both RFC and the SFA and the SPL... Ashley could spend 20m (pennies to him) on lawyers that would drive all of the above into extreme serious financial difficulties. Even with no chance of winning he could ruin them, if they make any mistake.

I guess Ashley baulked at the payoff the SFA whanks wanted and so it is hardball on both sides. my money is on Ashley.

[ShedTA]

Financially Ashley is a colossus compared to both RFC and the SFA and the SPL... Ashley could spend 20m (pennies to him) on lawyers that would drive all of the above into extreme serious financial difficulties. Even with no chance of winning he could ruin them, if they make any mistake.

I guess Ashley baulked at the payoff the SFA whanks wanted and so it is hardball on both sides. my money is on Ashley.

But exactly what are the sfa doing wrong legally? They aren't saying Ashley can't have 2 clubs, they are just saying they won't have a club with an owner who has another club in scottish football. They aren't stopping him from owning rangers, they would just be saying if he does rangers aren't welcome in scottish football. Unlikely it will come to that though.

[AberdeenAngus]

Financially Ashley is a colossus compared to both RFC and the SFA and the SPL... Ashley could spend 20m (pennies to him) on lawyers that would drive all of the above into extreme serious financial difficulties. Even with no chance of winning he could ruin them, if they make any mistake.

I guess Ashley baulked at the payoff the SFA whanks wanted and so it is hardball on both sides. my money is on Ashley.

FIFA take a dim view of clubs/associations who use the courts to contest matters which they see as reserved for football authorities.

[ShedTA]

FIFA take a dim view of clubs/associations who use the courts to contest matters which they see as reserved for football authorities.

Agreed. Fa's are more akin to a club, all members agree to adhere by the rules, to get a licence and be a member. The licence is granted on the understanding that the clubs abide.

[thplinth]

FIFA take a dim view of clubs/associations who use the courts to contest matters which they see as reserved for football authorities.

Yeah but they are also as bent as a nine pound note. So who will be the highest bidder in an SFA v Mike Ashley let's get our cash in an envelope cocks out competition? He might just decide aww baws to it. Personally I'd hold onto Newcastle. This whole scheme with RFC seems a bit ill considered.

[Flure]

Agreed. Fa's are more akin to a club, all members agree to adhere by the rules, to get a licence and be a member. The licence is granted on the understanding that the clubs abide.

As long as the rules don't break any laws.

This "no two clubs" thing might, just might, be seen as a restraint of trade?

[AberdeenAngus]

Yeah but they are also as bent as a nine pound note. So who will be the highest bidder in an SFA v Mike Ashley let's get our cash in an envelope cocks out competition? He might just decide aww baws to it. Personally I'd hold onto Newcastle. This whole scheme with RFC seems a bit ill considered.

I can't see where there is profit to be made in Scottish football for him.

[Flure]

I can't see where there is profit to be made in Scottish football for him.

Using Ibrox and Rangers as an advertising vehicle across Europe.

[AberdeenAngus]

Using Ibrox and Rangers as an advertising vehicle across Europe.

Surely just be cheaper to become an official UEFA partner?

[thplinth]

I can't see where there is profit to be made in Scottish football for him.

I can. See Barry Hearn's comments recently. For Ashley as a businessman it will be about value for money. Scottish Football has been run into the ground by inept corrupt cocksucking kunts. For decades... It is worth a lot more than it is currently priced at (i.e nothing thank you Neil Fat Slug Doncaster). It is ridiculous how bad the management of the game is in Scotland.

Edited December 15, 2014 by thplinth

[AberdeenAngus]

I can. See Barry Hearn's comments recently. For Ashley as a businessman it will be about value for money. Scottish Football has been run into the ground by inept corrupt cocksucking kunts. For decades... It is worth a lot more than it is currently priced at (i.e nothing thank you Neil Fat Slug Doncaster). It is ridiculous how bad the management of the game is in Scotland.

While there is obvious room for improvement to get Rangers competing in the latter stages of European competition would take levels of investment well beyond what he's spent on the side at Newcastle.

He's quite a canny operator and hasn't spent fortunes on Newcastle despite there being a clearer path to financial reward for getting them into the Champions League than there would be for getting a Scottish club there.

[EddardStark]

I doubt any Rangers fan will complain about the SFA calling Ashley to account.

[AberdeenAngus]

Also worth reading about Uefa's rules on dual involvement/ownership

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11275258/Mike-Ashleys-dual-control-of-Newcastle-United-and-Rangers-the-facts.html

[Charlie Endell]

I doubt any Rangers fan will complain about the SFA calling Ashley to account.

A few of them are not too happy on RM....

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=277111#entry1062351240

Edited December 15, 2014 by Charlie Endell

[deecie]

As long as the rules don't break any laws.

This "no two clubs" thing might, just might, be seen as a restraint of trade?

Very much so.

Hence the SFA giving themselves 6 weeks to make this disappear before Ashley destroys them.

[AberdeenAngus]

Very much so.

Hence the SFA giving themselves 6 weeks to make this disappear before Ashley destroys them.

Can't agree.

How on earth can an individual or company having an interests in 2 or more clubs be seen as anything other than a conflict of interests?

If the rule was successfully challenged it opens a can of worms where someone could have controlling interests in a number of clubs competing in the same leagues or cups. Team B could be ordered to lose to Team X to ensure no relegation by such an owner.

The phrase 'sporting integrity' has been aired a few times in the last 3 years - multi ownership goes to the very heart of that.

[deecie]

Can't agree.

How on earth can an individual or company having an interests in 2 or more clubs be seen as anything other than a conflict of interests?

If the rule was successfully challenged it opens a can of worms where someone could have controlling interests in a number of clubs competing in the same leagues or cups. Team B could be ordered to lose to Team X to ensure no relegation by such an owner.

The phrase 'sporting integrity' has been aired a few times in the last 3 years - multi ownership goes to the very heart of that.

Provided they're not in the same association, what's the problem? They don't actually compete against eachother.

[ShedTA]

Provided they're not in the same association, what's the problem? They don't actually compete against eachother.

Ok so what if someone say Ashley bought Celtic and both they and Newcastle faced each other in Europe. It's just not workable to retain any sense of fairness. With the wealth of some of the owners of some English teams they could afford 2 of 3 teams. That just would not work.

[deecie]

Ok so what if someone say Ashley bought Celtic and both they and Newcastle faced each other in Europe. It's just not workable to retain any sense of fairness. With the wealth of some of the owners of some English teams they could afford 2 of 3 teams. That just would not work.

There's already rules for that.

The team from the country with the highest coefficient gets a bye.

Nobody ever had a problem with Romanov (for this particular issue), so I don't see why now you can all have a go at Ashley.

[AberdeenAngus]

Provided they're not in the same association, what's the problem? They don't actually compete against eachother.

Did you read Uefa's rules?

If both qualify for Europe then it is a total no go.

There is a fair chance that could happen in future.

Would Rangers players, manager and staff happily forego a European spot in favour of Newcastle? That would also reduce the best chance of Rangers being in a position to make some serious money.

These arrangements even when in another FIFA confederation are always to the benefit of 1 club and the detriment of the other.

Other than making a very quick buck I still can't see whats in it for Ashley. The current TV deal down south sees Newcastle receive more in a season than the whole of Scottish football will in years.

Although our game was sold cheaply any new improved deal won't even touch the sides of what they get down south.

Edited December 15, 2014 by AberdeenAngus

[sbcmfc]

As far as the potential benefit for Mike Ashley, if nothing else Rangers (and Celtic) shift a hell of a lot of shirts! His main business is selling football shirts...

[Fred_Zeppelin]

You can't advertise in the Champion's League, UEFA don't allow it, we even have to change the seats that make the Nike logo when we're playing in the CL. All advertising in the stadium is covered by the CL logos.

[EddardStark]

from the Telegraph

Mike Ashley could be in control of Rangers as well as Newcastle United within weeks with the Scottish Football Association’s approval. The development looks increasingly possible despite Ashley being charged with breaches of club ownership rules by the governing body of the game in Scotland.

The Newcastle United owner has been cited under two disciplinary rules and Rangers under three rules but Telegraph Sport can reveal that Ashley plans to increase his stake at Ibrox to 29.9% – which would give him effective control of the beleaguered the club without triggering Stock Exchange takeover rules.

Such a move seems likely to be approved, albeit cautiously, by many in the game, because while Ashley plans to use Rangers as a branding vehicle for his sportswear chain Sports Direct, a healthy, competitive Rangers – in the Champions League with the Old Firm rivalry renewed – would attract more interest, sponsors and broadcast revenues across the board.

The SFA compliance officer, Tony McGlennan, believes that there is sufficient evidence to charge Ashley and Rangers under rules which prohibit a person involved in the management or administration of one club from being involved in the same or similar capacity in another club. Under SFA rules, it makes no difference whether the clubs are in different football jurisdictions and the charges will be considered at a hearing on January 27.

Ashley signed an undertaking with the SFA that he would not become involved in the management or administration of Rangers without the prior written consent of the association’s board. Since September, however, Ashley has executed a series of coups designed to put him in charge at Ibrox.



Having been thwarted by the former chief executive, Graham Wallace, and finance director, Philip Nash, in at attempt to acquire the rights to the Rangers trademark and crest, he bought 4.16million shares for a total of £850,000 to increase his holding in the club to 8.92 per cent.

He thus avoided having to invest in a share issue launched by the club with the intention of raising much-needed cash but which, in the event, brought in only £3.1million. In alliance with Sandy Easdale, Rangers’ football board chairman – who acts as proxy for a number of other shareholding blocks – Ashley had the 51 per cent investor approval to requisition an extraordinary general meeting in order to get rid of Wallace and Nash.

In the event, the pair quit, leaving Ashley free to nominate two board members in return for a loan of £2million, later increased to £3million. He installed Derek Llambias – his former managing director at Newcastle United – to conduct a review of the business and stem annual losses of over £8million, as first revealed by Telegraph Sport. In recent weeks several non-playing employees have lost their jobs or will soon do so, including Ally McCoist’s secretary, who has been in place for 30 years.

It is the sum of those actions which prompted McGlennan to cite Ashley and Rangers on dual ownership or administrative interest charges. However, early speculation that this would prompt Ashley to pull out of Rangers is wildly off the mark.

The SFA’s position is that it could not continue to ignore what it construes as obvious breaches of its rules. The question of Ashley’s ambitions for Rangers is entirely separate.

Ashley already controls sales of the club’s merchandise through his Sports Direct retail chain and a revived Rangers, capable of playing in the Champions League once more, would be a vehicle for brand advertising on a European scale. He is not immune to business setbacks – he lost a notional £6million when the online fashion retailer MySale issued a profit warning on Monday – but in pursuit of his aims at Ibrox Ashley is prepared to take his shareholding up to 29.9 per cent.

The club’s annual general meeting will be held next Monday and will be asked to approve a fresh share issue designed to raise £8million. An open issue will require 75 per cent shareholder approval but an offer to existing investors requires only 51 per cent – and, as has been demonstrated by his previous request to requisition an EGM targeted at Wallace and Nash – he has the necessary support.

Such a move would then require the agreement of the SFA board. No meetings are currently scheduled but if the Rangers share issue is agreed, Ashley’s lawyers will ask the SFA to call the board together to consider his position.

There is no certainty of anything like unanimous approval, but many in the higher reaches of the Scottish game acknowledge that a revived Rangers, capable of resuming the Old Firm rivalry and renewing the club’s presence in Europe would make Scotland more attractive to broadcasters and league sponsors, with general benefits.

In fact, by the time the SFA’s disciplinary hearing convenes at the end of January – five days before Rangers meet Celtic in the first Old Firm derby for almost three years – Ashley’s alleged infractions could have the status of a prior offence, committed before he completed his tactical strike on a badly battered club.