or to join or start a new Discussion

60 Comments
Article Rating 3 Stars

Reasonable remarks on Rangers.

http://chrisgraham76.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/sfa-decision-examined/#comment-1469

A fantastic piece. Time and again there is evidence Rangers directors could not have knew. Time and again the SFA panels analysis is proven flawed.

posted on 14/5/12

go on mate

No point in blabbering to us

If youve a point to make on the blog take it up with him

posted on 14/5/12

I'd rather not...

Attention seeker

Now Paul67...there's an insightful chap

posted on 14/5/12

The Tribunal took into account the extraordinary circumstances of the offences and the extent to which Rangers FC through its directors had been apparently misled and deceived by Mr Craig Whyte. Against that it took the view that whatever their position a number of individual directors and employees must have known that what was happening within Rangers FC was entirely wrong and illegitimate but they chose to do nothing to bring it to the attention of the public. That may be matter for their long term reflection but it does reduce the mitigatory impact of the suggestion that Rangers FC were innocent victims

+++

SFA statement

__________________

Ok now I’m really confused. The directors were “misled and deceived” but “must have known”. There is that phrase, “must have known”. Also they apparently “did nothing to bring it to the attention of the public”. You mean apart from resigning and telling every media outlet who covered it that is was down to being excluded from corporate governance? You really could not make this up. We know the SFA were aware of issues with Whyte because they tried to get information from him in October

+++

Chris' synopsis.

Can you see the misquotes and total analysis blips?

posted on 15/5/12

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 15/5/12

Ginger - I am concerned about the fit & proper test too.

And here is how it seems it may be getting "worked around"

No one investor apparently has more than 15% of the club.

The board are the people who need to be checked for fit & proper status. No doubt, when a board gets out together, this will be done.

posted on 15/5/12

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 15/5/12

Jeez the SFA doing their jobs.

Who knew......

posted on 15/5/12

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

posted on 15/5/12

Don't think they can do anything about minority shareholders, but they can certainly block anyone being on the board, with good reasons.

And as you say, there are ways around that - putting up a nominee on the board is the simplest method.

posted on 15/5/12

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 3 from 6 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available