Hungry hippo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It was only an informal agreement as far as I'm aware. Ashley will demonstrate that he is the only show in town that has the means of sorting out Rangers' malaise, as long as no restrictions are placed on him. The SFA will either agree or argue the case. In the event of the latter, then Ashley will then threaten to take the SFA to court. The SFA will then cave in as they have no money to fight the action. Some arrangement will be agreed to give the illusion of no direct ownership with "independent" directors and the use of third party nominee company owning shares. You may be right and I suspect the SFA would not be strong enough to prevent the purchase of the shares but they should be able to punish the club for a breach of the rules. I'll vote for a points penalty but definitely not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 You may be right and I suspect the SFA would not be strong enough to prevent the purchase of the shares but they should be able to punish the club for a breach of the rules. I'll vote for a points penalty but definitely not holding my breath. Points penalty. In your dreams! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Don't think the SFA rule is actually a rule. Unlikely to hold back Ashley. There are rules and then there are rules. They'll be just fine with whatever they do. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Points penalty for Ra Gers no chance, bigger bet would be Sports Direct Premiership. Edit I'm not sure that's possible but I'm sure after 2 years sponserless the "discretionary" line will be trotted out. It's in our best interests you know. Edited October 25, 2014 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punks No Deid Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 There are rules and then there are rules. They'll be just fine with whatever they do. Unfortunately. deffo, no chance that the gfa will do anything. Imagine if it was The Famous tho?...if there wasn't a rule in place then they'd invent a new one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phage Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 My take on it is... Mashley has the stadium rights, badge, merchandise rights, plus more? This loan will be secured against 1brox so in an administration event he gets the deeds. With him owning everything of worth... when TRFC come opened palmed around xmas time. No more loans will be forecoming. Infact maybe he could trigger admin by demanding payment of this emergency loan. Admin 2 takes places at which point he is pole position to either own the club lock, stock. Or second carry on as normal but now with the added revenue of renting the stadium (and/or Murray Park) back to whoever wins the admin 2 battle. Or thirdly to surcumvent owners rules... keep all the money making bits and Anne Budge TRFC in a fan owned subscription FOH type setup. One thing is for sure... he's making dosh out of this. Personally i dont think it is Champs League dreams and long term ownership as his plan. Why would you want too? All he has to do is keep the gravy train on track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Very bad for Rangers. Ashley appears to have got them by the balls. SFA to investigate? I've a feeling it's not that bad tbh. Like a couple of others I feel the fun is over for everybody now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So they can hurt Hearts and let off Rangers. Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 FF - (apologies if already mentioned) Just read the BBC story which states 'Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%'. Yet also states 'English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer.'. Am I missing something? Aye you are missing the fact that Campbell Ogilvie will sweep it all under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 SSN saying Ashley loan is interest free without any material goods secured against it however there will be caveats including greater influence at boardroom level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 SSN saying Ashley loan is interest free without any material goods secured against it however there will be caveats including greater influence at boardroom level. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Rather than just being about MA it is also in the interests of Sports Direct (and there other share holders) for Rangers to continue without the risk of Admin/liquidation & lucrative contracts being torn up. So similar in the way NTL, BSB & SMG bought into football clubs in the 90s a way around the SFA rules could be for Sports Direct to invest in Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It was only an informal agreement as far as I'm aware. Ashley will demonstrate that he is the only show in town that has the means of sorting out Rangers' malaise, as long as no restrictions are placed on him. The SFA will either agree or argue the case. In the event of the latter, then Ashley will then threaten to take the SFA to court. The SFA will then cave in as they have no money to fight the action. Some arrangement will be agreed to give the illusion of no direct ownership with "independent" directors and the use of a third party nominee company owning shares. I think you're very close to being bang on the cash there mate, how very corrupt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Rather than just being about MA it is also in the interests of Sports Direct (and there other share holders) for Rangers to continue without the risk of Admin/liquidation & lucrative contracts being torn up. So similar in the way NTL, BSB & SMG bought into football clubs in the 90s a way around the SFA rules could be for Sports Direct to invest in Rangers. The SFA isn't fit for purpose when it comes to making rules, that Celtic lawyer guy that died had them tied in knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Sorry, catch up post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 How about an merger with Newcastle quick and easy access to engerlan Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 SSN saying Ashley loan is interest free without any material goods secured against it however there will be caveats including greater influence at boardroom level. Is that the boardroom that he isnt permitted to have undue influence over?? Talk about slapping his boaby right off the face of those ruining sorry running our game!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 All this undue influence stuff is wrong. Ashley is entitled to request an EGM and boardroom changes based on his shareholding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboz Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It was only an informal agreement as far as I'm aware. Ashley will demonstrate that he is the only show in town that has the means of sorting out Rangers' malaise, as long as no restrictions are placed on him. The SFA will either agree or argue the case. In the event of the latter, then Ashley will then threaten to take the SFA to court. The SFA will then cave in as they have no money to fight the action. Some arrangement will be agreed to give the illusion of no direct ownership with "independent" directors and the use of a third party nominee company owning shares. Is it not a condition of membership that you can't take the Sfa to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The SFA will bottle it that is a certainty. MA wants Rangers in Europe that could be a bigger issue as UEFA won't pander to Rangers like the SFA will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The SFA will bottle it that is a certainty. MA wants Rangers in Europe that could be a bigger issue as UEFA won't pander to Rangers like the SFA will. UEFA would only object if both of Newcastle and Sevco qualified. Neither looks likely based on the dross playing for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 My take on it is... Mashley has the stadium rights, badge, merchandise rights, plus more? This loan will be secured against 1brox so in an administration event he gets the deeds. With him owning everything of worth... when TRFC come opened palmed around xmas time. No more loans will be forecoming. Infact maybe he could trigger admin by demanding payment of this emergency loan. Admin 2 takes places at which point he is pole position to either own the club lock, stock. Or second carry on as normal but now with the added revenue of renting the stadium (and/or Murray Park) back to whoever wins the admin 2 battle. Or thirdly to surcumvent owners rules... keep all the money making bits and Anne Budge TRFC in a fan owned subscription FOH type setup. One thing is for sure... he's making dosh out of this. Personally i dont think it is Champs League dreams and long term ownership as his plan. Why would you want too? All he has to do is keep the gravy train on track. I said all of this about 3'weeks ago. He is aiming to own all of the building blocks of Rangers v3, so he is the only contender after liquidation 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboelite Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) So MA gives them ?2m interest free as well as not looking for any assets. This to me isnt someone who is looking to plunder them short or long term but takeover and stabilise. 48hrs away from having the league sown up.....ahh well have to go do it the hard earned way then. Edited October 25, 2014 by Jamboelite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So MA gives them ?2m interest free as well as not looking for any assets. This to me isnt someone who is looking to plunder them short or long term but takeover and stabilise. 48hrs away from having the league sown up.....ahh well have go do if the hard earned way then. That's my take on it as well. No doubt there will be more to come out in the wash in the coming weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 UEFA would only object if both of Newcastle and Sevco qualified. Neither looks likely based on the dross playing for them. As soon as Rangers are eligible again, it would be easy for NUFC and RFC to end up in the Europa League together, I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So MA gives them ?2m interest free as well as not looking for any assets. This to me isnt someone who is looking to plunder them short or long term but takeover and stabilise. 48hrs away from having the league sown up.....ahh well have go do if the hard earned way then. It would also depend on whether Ashley's contracts were under threat of cancellation in admin. Plus if he gets his patsies on the board he can scoop up more assets like the trademarks in lieu of repayment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 An interest free loan. Sounds good doesn't it? Ashley gets it back and essentially gets two of his henchman in in exchange. Result? Men under his control run the club on his behalf. ie he de facto runs Rangers for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future's Maroon Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I personally take pretty much what FF says on here as bang on the money (or close enough)...and reading recent posts it stinks to high heaven to some sort of corruption going on, be that that Rangers or the SFA...it still stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 As an aside the fact that ashley isn't ploughing money in a la King at the present suggests there are still some twists and turns to come - I just don't know what they are The point is if ashley wanted to guarantee rangers back in the SPL, challenging Celtic and getting fans onside he has the cash to put in ?16m with a click of his fingers. He hasn't, so a few more page turners to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Ashley could do a Vlad, except use Rangers as his nursery club for Newcastle. I have no doubt that the media would condemn this in a similar fashion as we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Ashley could do a Vlad, except use Rangers as his nursery club for Newcastle. I have no doubt that the media would condemn this in a similar fashion as we were. Showcase what - a load of fat unfit 30 something Scottish huddies? Edited October 25, 2014 by Jammy T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biffa Bacon Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I read somewhere earlier.... That although green sold the rights to MA for a quid, Nash subsequently got a season deferment on the naming rights. If MA gets his associates on the board, he can overturn this decision and rename immediately. So the interest free stuff is only part of the story.... There will undoubtably be other factors as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Showcase what - a load of fat unfit 30 something Scottish huddies? No, loan out half of the Newcastle squad to them who aren't getting a game in the EPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) If TRIFC and Mike Ashley flagrantly break the two club rules then the SFA will act accordingly. Anyone who thinks the SFA are stupid enough to blatantly ignore a rule breach that serious at the biggest panto in Scottish football with the world watching is wrong. If two directors are removed due to this loan then The Rangers will find themselves in quite some bother. As for the taking the SFA to court stuff, if TRIFC took the SFA to court they'd be out on their arse within the week. Edited October 25, 2014 by Gregory House M.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 If TRIFC and Mike Ashley flagrantly break the two club rules then the SFA will act accordingly. Anyone who thinks the SFA are stupid enough to blatantly ignore a rule breach that serious at the biggest panto in Scottish football with the world watching is wrong. If two directors are removed due to this loan then The Rangers will find themselves in quite some bother. i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the sfa to do anything if Ashley breaches the two club rules. I'm not sure they can legally stop him owning two seperates clubs and I would think Ashley knows this to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the sfa to do anything if Ashley breaches the two club rules. I'm not sure they can legally stop him owning two seperates clubs and I would think Ashley knows this to. They can't. They can however take Rangers' membership if they take the SFA to court. You can challenge many rules of footballs governing bodies through courts but there is a reason these rules still exist and a reason you rarely hear of a club taking it's association to court. The whole of Scotland is watching them for another rule break. Back in 2012 the SFA may have believed they could slip under the radar but not now. No chance. They'll be punished and any attempt to avoid doing so would suggest corruption on their part. They won't risk their nice jobs for the sake of getting Rangers into the top flight. It's bizarre to me to suggest they would. The fact is though, TRIFC is teetering on the brink yet again after 2 years of membership. Serious questions need asked of what the SFA's membership requirements were and what the SFL (now SPFL) agreements were, because it doesn't reflect well on either entity. Edited October 25, 2014 by Gregory House M.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 They can't. They can however take Rangers' membership if they take the SFA to court. You can challenge many rules of footballs governing bodies through courts but there is a reason these rules still exist and a reason you rarely hear of a club taking it's association to court. The whole of Scotland is watching them for another rule break. Back in 2012 the SFA may have believed they could slip under the radar but not now. No chance. They'll be punished and any attempt to avoid doing so would suggest corruption on their part. They won't risk their nice jobs for the sake of getting Rangers into the top flight. Bless you and your belief that the SFA are impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 If TRIFC and Mike Ashley flagrantly break the two club rules then the SFA will act accordingly. Anyone who thinks the SFA are stupid enough to blatantly ignore a rule breach that serious at the biggest panto in Scottish football with the world watching is wrong. If two directors are removed due to this loan then The Rangers will find themselves in quite some bother. As for the taking the SFA to court stuff, if TRIFC took the SFA to court they'd be out on their arse within the week. I doubt it. Unless by 'some bother' you mean polite letters which can completely ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 They can't. They can however take Rangers' membership if they take the SFA to court. You can challenge many rules of footballs governing bodies through courts but there is a reason these rules still exist and a reason you rarely hear of a club taking it's association to court. The whole of Scotland is watching them for another rule break. Back in 2012 the SFA may have believed they could slip under the radar but not now. No chance. They'll be punished and any attempt to avoid doing so would suggest corruption on their part. They won't risk their nice jobs for the sake of getting Rangers into the top flight. I hope your right but I can't help think that there will be a lot of goings on behind the scenes to smooth the way for Ashley to save rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Does Ashley want Rangers? Mike Ashley is known for his stock gambles. That's what The Rangers was to him. He's merely trying to secure a return as he see's they're crashing and burning. I don't see this as a move to take ownership of Rangers at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Bless you and your belief that the SFA are impartial. Quite the opposite. Even the SFA aren't stupid enough to flaunt it on such a grand scale though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Quite the opposite. Even the SFA aren't stupid enough to flaunt it on such a grand scale though. The architects of the five way agreement want one thing. A "Rangers" back in the top flight as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It would also depend on whether Ashley's contracts were under threat of cancellation in admin. Plus if he gets his patsies on the board he can scoop up more assets like the trademarks in lieu of repayment. This. He just bought control of the board for a $2m loan. The next loan of, say $6m, will come with the security over Ibrox. Voted for by his flunkies. Club slides into liquidation - up pops Ashley with the Airfix kit for Rangers v3 - all hived off by him for the sake of a few loans which he can write off to tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The architects of the five way agreement want one thing. A "Rangers" back in the top flight as soon as possible. Once it starts becoming a problem rather than a solution that notion will go out the window, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) It wouldn't be a club taking the SFA to court, it would be an individual who is a prospective investor. "Restraint of trade" and other similar terms would be brought up. The bit that intrigues me, if true, is that the loan offer is unsecured. That would suggest that Ashley is in for a while. However, with a bit of out the box thinking, it may be that Laxey will provide the next loan and Rizvi (via Blue Pitch) the next one. How will they be repaid? A mixture of cash and cheap shares. What does that provide? Your money back and an increased share of the club with minority shareholders shafted diluted to insignificance. The end game? A sale or collapse of the club and the value of the assets realised for the benefit of a few (but now majority) shareholders. A fairly standard Spiv tactic. Edited October 26, 2014 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 So MA gives them ?2m interest free as well as not looking for any assets. "Physical assets" was the description; suggesting that he's secured the loan on intangible assets such as naming rights. If there was no security, they'd be no need for the weasel wording and they'd say "unsecured loan". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I doubt that Rangers will repay these loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisyboy Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 When foes the loan get paid back? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron79 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 When foes the loan get paid back? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Around the same time the EBTs are called in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisyboy Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Around the same time the EBTs are called in Pmsl I thought as much Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts