How exactly is it that rangers oldco are to get a vote again. The oldco's license has expired and they couldn't get accounts signed off to allow it to be renewed, due to the danger to them as a going concern. SPL's rules state you need a license to hold a share in the league. Therefore oldco can't hold a share in the SPL so can't vote. More dark clouds over Ibrox?
With this in mind. Do the newco hold an sfa licence to entitle them to ask for the vote in the first place? Don't recall them getting one??
No they don't hold one the now. They are still trying to determine what league they will be in before submitting their accounts.
Think this may go some way towards explaining it? "Whilst Rangers PLC [the oldco] is no longer entitled to hold a share, it still does hold it until it is removed or transferred away. A member is not defined as someone entitled to a share, but as someone who has a share. Therefore, even if no longer entitled to a share, until the share is no longer in the person’s ownership, they are still a shareholder and have voting rights. Under Article 14, where a Member is no longer entitled to hold a share, the share can be removed from it and transferred to another party, effectively by force. This involves a GM of the Members passing a Qualified Resolution instructing the Board to write to the Member instructing the transfer of the share to a named transferee. That transfer causes the transferor’s club no longer to be a member of the league. If the no longer entitled Member fails to effect the transfer, then the SPL can enforce the transfer by filling out the papers itself. That procedure will not take place prior to the vote on 4th July and therefore Rangers PLC will have the right to vote" http://http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/why-rangers-can-vote-on-4th-july-and-how-the-spl-and-rangers-are-in-error/
Logically the “addition or admission” of a new Member, which is what Rangers would be if not a continuing Member, would expand the SPL from its present eleven members to twelve. That would require an 83% vote in favour. That equates to 10 votes out of 12 to allow “new Rangers” into the league. thanks for the link cleared up a few things. So the spl need to decide if its a new rangers before the vote to determine the % of votes required. They also need to determine if this new club has any players. Don't see how you can vote them in when they have no players.
You're welcome sir. Yes, I think Paul McConville's article explains the detail of the exact position - lets hope the SPL and the other clubs' chairmen are as up to speed with the legalities or at least understand them when explained ... and of course, do the principled thing in respect of what they decide on July 4th! By the way, if anyone has problems accessing the article directly from the link, (which has happened to me since posting it) I suggest copying it to do a 'Google' search and of the articles that appear, click on the (currently top) article "Why Rangers Can Vote on 4th July, and How the SPL and Rangers are in Error"
its missing the two dots at the front of the address http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/why-rangers-can-vote-on-4th-july-and-how-the-spl-and-rangers-are-in-error/
Don't be a tit now. A bit of sense will tell you that a vote that is supposed to contain 12 people but contains 11 is very undemocratic. Tit.
There's much more to the article than that - why don't you read it and add something sensible to the thread - or are you incapable of anything other than insult and one-line garbage?
I don't need to add anything to it. That is the plain and simple fact of the matter, if you think its more complicated then its not my fault you're thick as ****. You go into details by saying "they don't have a license" etc but that has **** all to do with it and if you don't see that again, you're thick as ****. Besides I enjoy insulting people - you ****.
Incorrect. You are obviously not very observant and incapable of absorbing information which stretches to more than a few simplistic words. As for your base dribblings - they serve only to demonstrate your lack of vocabulary. Come back when you have got your facts correct, learned how to express yourself better and can therefore engage in a meaningful and dignified exchange. Oh, how remiss of me, I forgot - 'dignity' and a Rangers' fan such as yourself ... an oxymoron (how apt).
Is the suggestion that less than 12 clubs voting would be undemocratic? Because that doesn't really make sense. Rangers, by virtue of their own actions should have been disenfranchised.
I rest my case. Again, you respond with a one-line, pointless, few words which add nothing whatsoever to reasonable and eloquent discourse. The only slight improvement and possibly, saving grace in your favour, is that you left out the profanities ... there may be hope for you yet or was that simply a case of forgetfulness on your part? By the way, if it was the case that 11 rather than 12 votes were in fact accepted, that, by any sensible person's reasoning, is an overwhelming majority which, by definition, is most assuredly democratic. Methinks, therefore, 'tis you who needs to 'learn how democracy works'.
The SFA’s position is equally as problematic as Lord Carloway could shortly decide to suspend or expel Rangers from the Association after a recent Court of Session verdict set aside a transfer embargo imposed by an earlier tribunal. Doubt also remains if newco Rangers can even be granted automatic entry to the SFA as article 14 suggests a member’s share, held by the old company, is non-transferrable. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/sfl/2012/06/21/rangers-in-crisis-sfl-clubs-ready-to-accept-ibrox-men-in-first-division-in-return-for-league-revamp-86908-23898830/
