Ayrshirebear73 27 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Right I might be wrong. But did Romanov not own hearts and some Lithuanian outfit? Kaunas? At the same time? So why would the sfa have an issue with Mike Ashley owning Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Its an SFA rule not a UEFA or FIFA rule as far as I know. I dont think any court would hold up the rule. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshirebear73 27 Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Aye. But the sfa allowed him to buy hearts when he already owned another club. So is it a rule or is it a lot of pish made up by the papers? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,137 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Rules are made to be broken or changed, Ashley will get his way one way or another. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprotson11 147 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Aye. But the sfa allowed him to buy hearts when he already owned another club. So is it a rule or is it a lot of pish made up by the papers?From what I gather the "rule" was brought in after he bought Hearts, maybe in the last season or so Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Roman Abramovich was basically funding CSKA Moscow when they won the UEFA Cup in 2005. Sibneft paid them About £40 in "sponsorship" at the same time as he owned and funded Chelsea.I don't see this being a problem.Romanov at Hearts also owned other football and sports teams.Do Watford's owners not own Udinese as well? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eaglesham Bear 107 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 No one likes us we don't care. Haven't you noticed when the rules concern us the rule book is thrown out the window and they have free reign to make them up as they go along as long as they damage us. Never forgive never forget. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Also, I'd be really surprised if a businessman as successful as Ashley hasn't already had talks with the SFA to make sure this isn't all a big waste of his time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Well it's a septic phrase adopted by the SFA ,Rules are rules Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 He wont be making any moves to own us outright anytime soon anyway, so not really worth worrying about.Why buy up shares for control, when you already essentially have control? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blumhoilann 6,712 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ashley will probably offer a wee sponsorship of their unsponsored 'top' league and the rule will be bent to suit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Lady 2,380 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Cunt Reagan said "The rules are there to protect the club"Just before they completed "Due Diligence" on some Billionaire from Motherwell/Monaco.Worse than corrupt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prso's headband 35,428 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Think Ashley will have these "rules" completely sussed out already. Even if he didn't he will get his way. He might actually stand up to the rhebel media, footballing institutions and pathetic journalists this part of the country breeds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulReid 184 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Ashley has already asked the sfa of he can hold 26% of shares and wanted a 48 hour response before the last share issue. The sfa said the wanted a full business plan and recieved nothing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helicopter Sundae 5,986 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Any rule will have been put there to hamper Rangers and our recovery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 No one likes us we don't care. Haven't you noticed when the rules concern us the rule book is thrown out the window and they have free reign to make them up as they go along as long as they damage us. Never forgive never forget.They should throw the fucking rule book at themselves. All newspapers and, fangroups should go fuck. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 The SFA will do nothing. Legally they don't have a leg to stand on and Ashley could take their trousers down if it went to court. He'll breeze through. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blumhoilann 6,712 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 According to the BhBC,the SFA have written to Ashley wanting to know his intent for the Club..............to make RFC a success you cretins would be my reponse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geronimoo 1,474 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Whats to stop Ashley buying the shares in the name of a family member. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinty 1,445 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Yes, it does. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.