Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Disciplinary Rule 77: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Outcome ? The alleged breach was not proved." Well, I must say that's a wonderfully clear and transparent process. Rule: People must not do vague and unspecified things. Verdict: Not sure if these alleged vague and unspecified things happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think the SFA were limited to a ?10K fine on each charge. Heavier sanctions are available on the club. The fine for OWNING two FOOTBALL CLUBS is limited to ten thousands pounds. There's something ill-considered about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Ashley's lawyers have mentioned rightful place, top of the Scottish game and Champions League and European glory in their defence haven't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) On the day he has been named the 306th richest person in the world, Such a painful fine... So at the moment we are looking at King, Murray and the third one get appointed to the board. Llambas and the other get voted off at the EGM. However Ashley has the power under the terms of the SD funding to appoint two directors. So we could find that King gets his wish but Ashley puts his two back on the board leaving Rangers still needing to repay ?10m. King will try to rebuild the club but with one hand tied behind his back. Liked the tweet below. Allan Price ?@AllanGPrice 5m5 minutes ago So is Mike Ashley still in breach of the rules, but if he pays ?7,500 it's ok? #Rangers Allan Price just asked the question I was about to. Does Big Mike just set up a Direct Debit and say see if I care. Edited March 3, 2015 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveb15 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ?7,500 fine issued to a billionaire. Wow. That's like fining you average person 20p. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Seven thousand five hundred pounds. SFA bringing the hammer. Dont **** with us or we will take your lunch money without batting an eyelid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 @scotzine: In honour of Mike Ashley getting hammered with that ?7,500 fine. We want you to send us your most hilarious ways he can pay that fine off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Rangers have been cited for breaching Rules 1, 19 and 77. Disciplinary Rule 1: All members shall: b.) be subject to and comply with (i) the Articles (ii) this protocol. (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith. Rule 1 - has a maximum sanctions of: ?1,000,000 and/or ejection/ exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above, provided that such other sanctions are sanctions listed in respect of other Rules or at Paragraph 3 to this Annex A. Rule 19 - ?10,000 (as for Ashley above) Rule 77 - ?500,000 and/or suspension and/or termination of membership (heavier sanction available on the club rather than the individual) Edited March 3, 2015 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Alan Price just asked the question I was about to. Does Big Mike just set up a Direct Debit and say see if I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Rangers have been cited for breaching Rules 1, 19 and 77. Rule 1 - has a maximum sanctions of: ?1,000,000 and/or ejection/ exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above, provided that such other sanctions are sanctions listed in respect of other Rules or at Paragraph 3 to this Annex A. Rule 19 - ?10,000 Rule 77 - ?500,000 and/or suspension and/or termination of membership What's Rule 1 and why's it not mentioned in the "judgement"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 What's Rule 1 and why's it not mentioned in the "judgement"?Ah right - ok. You updated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I think the SFA were limited to a ?10K fine on each charge. Heavier sanctions are available on the club. Yeah looks like it. If he had been found guilty on rule 77, as a non official of the club, his maximum fine would be ?5k. If Rangers breach rule 77 the top end is ?500k fine and/or suspension or withdrawal of membership. Although it could also be as low as ?500. (Edit - missed your last post inc. rule 1 sanctions) Edited March 3, 2015 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 What's Rule 1 and why's it not mentioned in the "judgement"? Disciplinary Rule 1: All members shall:b.) be subject to and comply with (i) the Articles (ii) this protocol. (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith. Ashley wasn't charged for violating Rule 1, but Rangers have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 When it comes to looking at Rangers and say they are found guilty, will they take into accounts previous serious breaches of SFA rules less than 3 years ago? Or sanction based on a first time new club offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 So what happens after the fine ? Is it like a traffic offence - if MA keeps on keeping on does he rack up enough fines to get banned ? Seriously , what is the point of this regulation . You wouldn't think Scottish football could become any more of a laughing stock but along comes Ashley........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon tinted glasses 2 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 "Once appointed to the board, King and Murray must seek approval from the Scottish Football Association under the governing body's fit and proper person criteria. Both were on the board of Rangers Football Club plc in the period leading up to, and in King's case beyond, Craig Whyte putting the business into administration. King was also convicted of 41 breaches of the Income Tax Act in South Africa, following a decade-long legal case with the South African Revenue Services." This is in the BBC's statement on todays King proceedings. It cant be said in plainer terms and should the SFA allow any of the pair of them authority in the boardroom then i hope the HMRC are currently getting the lawyers and vaseline out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Rangers have been cited for breaching Rules 1, 19 and 77. Disciplinary Rule 1: All members shall: b.) be subject to and comply with (i) the Articles (ii) this protocol. (f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith. Rule 1 - has a maximum sanctions of: ?1,000,000 and/or ejection/ exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above, provided that such other sanctions are sanctions listed in respect of other Rules or at Paragraph 3 to this Annex A. Rule 19 - ?10,000 (as for Ashley above) Rule 77 - ?500,000 and/or suspension and/or termination of membership (heavier sanction available on the club rather than the individual) Rule 1 - about ?10,000 and/or no other punishment and/or maybe a suspended penalty which we won't enforce anyway and/or have a safe drive home. Rule 19 - ?10,000 Rule 77 - Not proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songster Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Let's look at a recent precedent (which might seem irrelevant as it's a different breach, but bear with me). Livingston were fined ?10,000 and 5 points deducted for not paying tax on ?30,500 of bonuses (probably taxable at about ?10,000) - this meant they could sign players when otherwise they wouldn't have been able to (unless they stumped up the tax before the transfer window, which they didn't). Ashley found guilty of undue influence including board members in his pocket (ignoring alternatives that didn't suit Ashley) and at least ?5Million loan in place. SFA Decide to fine Ashley less than the maximum, even though the ?10K limit would have been just 1/500th of the loan Ashley put up! They should have gone for the maximum and then acted immediately to increase the sanctions available. Given that Ashley loans saved Rangers from administration (and the risk of tax and other bills not being paid, plus the 25 point deduction, and the inability to sign players!) surely there has to be a much bigger fine on the horizon for Rangers. I'm thinking that at least ?50,000 is in order but doubt the SFA have the balls for that. Rangers have dragged the reputation of Scottish Football through the mud for years and they deserve, in this instance, to be punished for their Directors ignoring alternatives to the Ashley loans (which caused much media coverage of a negative nature). I'm afraid the, convenient (given the dragging of heels by the SFA), change of directors at Rangers will reduce the sanctions imposed. King is surely going to shamelessly use the situation to his advantage and set forth his action plan and how he's distancing the club from Ashley control (but not emphasising the frying pan into the fire situation that's just happened). I'm already feeling sick about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I wonder what Ed Milband el al will think when King the glib and shameless liar and convicted "tax evader" gets onto the Board of one of the UK most prestigious footballing club. Will questions be raised in the very big hoose!? Edited March 3, 2015 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altyjambo Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Ooh, wonder what those "material and adverse changes" or "significant adverse event conditions" could possibly be to stop the drawdown taking place.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 2nd loan about to be taken up. [emoji1] And it will be spent before the end of the week. Big Mike tightening his grip on the scrotum of The Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getintaethem Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Nice welcome present for the Lying King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The money is required from the third week of March, so either King takes SD's money with conditions, or he finds his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 It's on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 It's on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) The money is required from the third week of March, so either King takes SD's money with conditions, or he finds his own.Two weeks (roughly) for King to find the necessary funds, pay it to the Club, while at the same time trying to ensure he has people (himself?) approved and in place on the board, so he can control how it's used. That's a BIG ask..! Edited March 3, 2015 by The Gasman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 03 March 2015 Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers" the "Club" or the "Company") Extraordinary General Meeting Voting The Board of Rangers notes the Press Release from David King issued today. Proxy voting closes tomorrow morning at 10am, and at the current time a significant number of shares have not yet voted; the outcome cannot therefore be determined with certainty. The position of the proxy voting will not be announced ahead of the meeting for regulatory reasons, and in any event shareholders have the right to revoke their proxy vote by attendance in person at the general meeting. The Directors believe that they have at all times sought to act in the best interests of Rangers for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole and refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is not the case and in particular any suggestion that they have given their personal interests priority over those of the Company. By remaining in post the directors wish to give the Company and possible incoming directors (should the Board change) the best possible chance of complying with the AIM rules and of avoiding the risk highlighted in the circular of 06 February 2015 of the Company's shares being suspended. There can be no guarantee of avoiding suspension. The Board have reached out to David King in recent days to seek a resolution in the best interests of the Club but regrettably this has not yet proved possible. If control of the board of directors of the Company changes as a result of the general meeting the directors pledge that they will do their utmost to work with the new board in the interests of Rangers Football Club, as they have done and continue to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchmul Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The gloves are off. the liar king now has a choice, spend his own cash(which he doesn't like doing) or accept ashleys sports directs conditions for the 2nd loan. As Harry Hill was fond of saying "so I like Dave King and I like Mike Ashley, but who's best? theres only one way to find out, FIGHT" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Things are hotting up [emoji3] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The gloves are off. the liar king now has a choice, spend his own cash(which he doesn't like doing) or accept ashleys sports directs conditions for the 2nd loan. As Harry Hill was fond of saying "so I like Dave King and I like Mike Ashley, but who's best? theres only one way to find out, FIGHT" I would love to know what the conditions are. I would bet on them being verging on ridiculous so it forces king to stump up all monies owed to Ashley asap. Be very interesting to see if king is willing to throw in his own money to rid the club of Ashley once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Young Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 You knda get the impression that MA Is holding all the Aces here and the fun is about to begin i would not like to be the Lying King not with MA as an Enemy, Popcorn at the ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyphoonJambo Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 But now that he has been fined the massive ?7500 wont the billionaire big Mike have to stop any dual interest activities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 03 March 2015 Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers" the "Club" or the "Company") Extraordinary General Meeting Voting The Board of Rangers notes the Press Release from David King issued today. Proxy voting closes tomorrow morning at 10am, and at the current time a significant number of shares have not yet voted; the outcome cannot therefore be determined with certainty. The position of the proxy voting will not be announced ahead of the meeting for regulatory reasons, and in any event shareholders have the right to revoke their proxy vote by attendance in person at the general meeting. The Directors believe that they have at all times sought to act in the best interests of Rangers for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole and refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is not the case and in particular any suggestion that they have given their personal interests priority over those of the Company. By remaining in post the directors wish to give the Company and possible incoming directors (should the Board change) the best possible chance of complying with the AIM rules and of avoiding the risk highlighted in the circular of 06 February 2015 of the Company's shares being suspended. There can be no guarantee of avoiding suspension. The Board have reached out to David King in recent days to seek a resolution in the best interests of the Club but regrettably this has not yet proved possible. If control of the board of directors of the Company changes as a result of the general meeting the directors pledge that they will do their utmost to work with the new board in the interests of Rangers Football Club, as they have done and continue to do. So Llambias and Leach are going to pitch up at Ibrox on Friday then and face the baying mob? If defeat is so certain, not sure I'd be so brave. Maybe they won't turn up and video conference in over the large screens - from a 5 star hotel in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Young Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 03 March 2015 Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers" the "Club" or the "Company") Extraordinary General Meeting Voting The Board of Rangers notes the Press Release from David King issued today. Proxy voting closes tomorrow morning at 10am, and at the current time a significant number of shares have not yet voted; the outcome cannot therefore be determined with certainty. The position of the proxy voting will not be announced ahead of the meeting for regulatory reasons, and in any event shareholders have the right to revoke their proxy vote by attendance in person at the general meeting. The Directors believe that they have at all times sought to act in the best interests of Rangers for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole and refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is not the case and in particular any suggestion that they have given their personal interests priority over those of the Company. By remaining in post the directors wish to give the Company and possible incoming directors (should the Board change) the best possible chance of complying with the AIM rules and of avoiding the risk highlighted in the circular of 06 February 2015 of the Company's shares being suspended. There can be no guarantee of avoiding suspension. The Board have reached out to David King in recent days to seek a resolution in the best interests of the Club but regrettably this has not yet proved possible. If control of the board of directors of the Company changes as a result of the general meeting the directors pledge that they will do their utmost to work with the new board in the interests of Rangers Football Club, as they have done and continue to do. But the lying King has declared victory. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/king-declares-landslide-victory-in-battle-for-rangers-199096n.119794391? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ?7500 fine is absolutely laughable. Vlad was fined ?10k alone for comments about referees! Let alone break actual rules on ownership. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2348895/SFA-fine-Hearts-after-Romanovs-latest-attack.html The SFA running scared. Even their paltry fine is unenforceable and Big Mike knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchmul Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I would love to know what the conditions are. I would bet on them being verging on ridiculous so it forces king to stump up all monies owed to Ashley asap. Be very interesting to see if king is willing to throw in his own money to rid the club of Ashley once and for all. It will be interesting to find out but i'm sure the lying king will just put in his own money...... ?7500 fine is absolutely laughable. Vlad was fined ?10k alone for comments about referees! Let alone break actual rules on ownership. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2348895/SFA-fine-Hearts-after-Romanovs-latest-attack.html The SFA running scared. Even their paltry fine is unenforceable and Big Mike knows it. SFA, what a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phage Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ?7,500 fine issued to a billionaire. Wow. That's like fining you average person 20p. What a joke. your right some earning 25,000 a year would be fined 18.7p of their salary for the year. Assuming MA is worth exactly 1bn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 The ?5m drawdown is on? Big Mike's boys show exactly who runs the show. [emoji38] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 2nd loan about to be taken up. [emoji1] Who worded this statement? I'm hoping Derek Llambias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkishcap Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I appreciate the people on here who go into all this big time as I admit its all too time consuming for me not to mention brain hurt but I have to say I did not see the egm being cancelled, so question is had it been in London with a big spread/wine/brandy/port etc do you think it would still have gone ahead Or am I being a bit simplistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbey Craig Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 On Ashley's orders no doubt. I reckon Ashley and Llambias worked their strategy out months ago and Llambias can work on his own. After all, big Mike has just been fined for interfering, he can't have that happen again, how could he afford the increased fine of ?10,000 if he is found out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I like the last line, "If the funds are not able to be drawn down from the Facility, alternative sources of external funding will be required."Is that a subtle threat there from MA? If you don't play nice then you won't be getting my money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 King will be spending the 3 bears dough surely??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) King will be spending the 3 bears dough surely??? Now this is where it's all going to get interesting - was Llambias correct when he intimated that the 3 Bears crapped themselves when it looked like their offer of a loan might actually be accepted. Loads of different ways all of this might play out - one thing is certain and that is that Ashley is going to call the shots for a while yet. Edited March 3, 2015 by Deevers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Guessing that none of this can be a surprise to King. He can't have expected big Mike to lay out welcome mat, remove his men from the board and let King have SD money, interest free, for as long as King wanted, just because he, King, is a Ranjurs man. As King and his band of followers have sprouted on for months about having ?50m, then ?30m and now ?16m just waiting to be 'invested'. All he has to do is, get legal clearance from judicial system allowing him to be a director, pass Fit and Proper Person guidelines, find and appoint a NOMAD, spend his and the three bears money to pay off SD, be it ?2m, ?5m or whatever it comes to and he has control. Then he only needs to find money to pay rest of seasons wages, any outstanding bills, get scouting system set up, pay off Ally and Kenny (possibly Durant as well), set aside enough money to repair Ibrox, get new management team and secure promotion all within about 4 weeks. How hard can that be when you have John Brown, Paul Murray and Keith Jackson in your camp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Having read the two statements again from King and the Existing board my impression is that one of them is lying. Kings says the voting is in his favour by a landslide whilst the Board say that as of this time not all the he votes are in "the outcome cannot therefore be determined with certainty. The position of the proxy voting will not be announced ahead of the meeting for regulatory reasons," Considering that share trading is still possible are these statements not in breach of trading rules. I don't know myself I'm just guessing,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well, this is a not unexpected turn of events! One thing I'm not getting though. King has got all his motions supported so the NOMAD has to go too. Why are the shares not suspended then, until a new NOMAD is in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well, this is a not unexpected turn of events! One thing I'm not getting though. King has got all his motions supported so the NOMAD has to go too. Why are the shares not suspended then, until a new NOMAD is in place? If the NOMAD does jump, and the shares are suspended does this affect the EGM though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 If the NOMAD does jump, and the shares are suspended does this affect the EGM though?Nope but it will stop another share issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well, this is a not unexpected turn of events! One thing I'm not getting though. King has got all his motions supported so the NOMAD has to go too. Why are the shares not suspended then, until a new NOMAD is in place? I wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Kings statement lacks substance and truth particularly as his statement seems to contradict the Boards statement. Are the SA judges words describing King true after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts