This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/10/mike-ashley-scottish-fa-newcastle-united-fine
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Mike Ashley fails in court bid to overturn Scottish FA fine | Mike Ashley fails in court bid to overturn Scottish FA fine |
| (2 months later) | |
| The owner of Newcastle United, Mike Ashley, has failed in a bid to overturn a fine from the Scottish Football Association over his influence at Rangers. | The owner of Newcastle United, Mike Ashley, has failed in a bid to overturn a fine from the Scottish Football Association over his influence at Rangers. |
| The sports governing body fined Ashley £7,500, reduced to £1,000 on appeal, after finding he had breached SFA rules aimed at preventing people involved in the management or administration of one football club becoming involved in, or having influence over, the management or administration of another club. | The sports governing body fined Ashley £7,500, reduced to £1,000 on appeal, after finding he had breached SFA rules aimed at preventing people involved in the management or administration of one football club becoming involved in, or having influence over, the management or administration of another club. |
| SFA tribunals ruled that the breaches were a result of Mash Holdings Ltd, of which Ashley is the majority shareholder, loaning Rangers money and Ashley’s associate Derek Llambias being appointed to the Glasgow club’s board. | SFA tribunals ruled that the breaches were a result of Mash Holdings Ltd, of which Ashley is the majority shareholder, loaning Rangers money and Ashley’s associate Derek Llambias being appointed to the Glasgow club’s board. |
| Ashley sought judicial review of the decision at the highest court in Scotland, claiming errors in law had been made and seeking to have the breaches and fine scrapped. | Ashley sought judicial review of the decision at the highest court in Scotland, claiming errors in law had been made and seeking to have the breaches and fine scrapped. |
| The court of session judgment, published on Friday, said Mash entered into a credit facility arrangement of £2m with the owner of Rangers FC, Rangers Football Club Ltd (RFCL), on 26 October 2014. Conditions of the loan stipulated that Mash could appoint up to two directors on the board of RFCL. | The court of session judgment, published on Friday, said Mash entered into a credit facility arrangement of £2m with the owner of Rangers FC, Rangers Football Club Ltd (RFCL), on 26 October 2014. Conditions of the loan stipulated that Mash could appoint up to two directors on the board of RFCL. |
| Days later, Llambias was appointed as a director of RFCL and its sole shareholder, Rangers International Football Club plc. | Days later, Llambias was appointed as a director of RFCL and its sole shareholder, Rangers International Football Club plc. |
| Ashley’s lawyer, Craig Sandison QC, argued that Mash – not Ashley – entered into the credit facility agreement, but SFA lawyers disagreed. | Ashley’s lawyer, Craig Sandison QC, argued that Mash – not Ashley – entered into the credit facility agreement, but SFA lawyers disagreed. |
| In a written judgment, Philip Brodie said the SFA disciplinary tribunal was “entitled to find that the petitioner [Ashley] had acted ‘through’ his associate, Mash”. | In a written judgment, Philip Brodie said the SFA disciplinary tribunal was “entitled to find that the petitioner [Ashley] had acted ‘through’ his associate, Mash”. |
| Lord Brodie also agreed with the SFA that the “very granting of the right to nominate directors in and of itself gave rise to the possibility of the petitioner influencing the affairs of two clubs”. | Lord Brodie also agreed with the SFA that the “very granting of the right to nominate directors in and of itself gave rise to the possibility of the petitioner influencing the affairs of two clubs”. |