28 Dec 2014 13:47:27
Ed what is your opinion on the make up of the sfa board from last week, with lawell and petrie on it, surely a conflict of interests

{Ed001's Note -can that be avoided in Scottish football? There seems to be no way when it comes to Celtic and Rangers, as everyone seems to be on one side or the other.}

1.) 28 Dec 2014
28 Dec 2014 14:40:30
Paul Shackleton still in charge of rangers account with the new nomad. conflict of interest with complaints going into the new nomad about the old nomad?

2.) 28 Dec 2014
28 Dec 2014 14:51:41
Your probably right ed, but all we needed was Thompson from Dundee utd on it as well and we would of had a full house

{Ed001's Note - the problem is that it needs people from outside of Scotland to get away from any conflict of interest. Then you have the problem of it being people who don't understand the situation properly.}

3.) 28 Dec 2014
So obviously it would be a conflict of interests too with Campbell Ogilvy, also read its a conflict of interests due to Dermot Desmond being major shareholder & owning betdaq!!Also the state aid, this is all pathetic attempting to try dig up dirt on them! They should be the furthest thoughts on our minds! Ed's correct it should be an independent board from outside Scotland, but what does that say about Scotland?Having too have non Scots in the SFA it's all a shambles from top too bottom

4.) 28 Dec 2014
28 Dec 2014 20:20:19
I wasnt trying to dig up dirt on anybody, I just don't think it's right that lawell is on a panel that's making decisions about rangers, he's not going to make decisions based on what's best for rangers are Scottish football he's going to do what's best for his club which is understandable, I don't like him but he is a good ceo!always stands up for his club

5.) 29 Dec 2014
Ed. Can I ask the SFA question the other way round. What is our argument for saying investment by MA should be allowed. I think it's a given the rule about 3% cross ownership has been in place for a while. Ashley got agreement to allow up to 10% subject to some conditions, which I guess was to stay true to the intent - not controlling two clubs. While we might not agree or like it, let's just accept that is the rule that we signed up to. So why do we think there is a good case to go to 30%. Was he trying to argue no one else would invest, so this is the only way to get money into the club. It would appear this is not true. If the SFA are aware there are other potential investors, what other good reason is there for further changes to the rule. It just makes me more suspicious that they don't want anyone else close to the club. Maybe, just maybe they are doing us a favour.

{Ed001's Note - I think people are getting mixed up on this issue anyway. This should not be Rangers v SFA at all, this is Mike Ashley trying to get his grubby mitts on Rangers despite owning Newcastle already. Ashley who is deliberately putting Rangers into financial jeopardy to further his aims of taking control. I am not sure whether or not the SFA have Rangers' best interests at heart or not, but I really don't see why anyone would want that man to run their club. He is a spiv of the worst kind. A leech. All he is interested in is profit. If people weren't so ready to attack everything to do with the SFA, they might realise that backing Ashley would be a disaster for the club.}

6.) 29 Dec 2014
Sad bear yes it is a bad day when an independent papal is needed, but it's a worst day when indeviduals won't allow it, wonder why

7.) 29 Dec 2014
Sfa are a farce though lol

8.) 29 Dec 2014
So, a panel from outside Scotland to decide what is in the bets interests of Scottish Football. never heard such utter mince. Peter Lawwell has been on recird as saying that Rangers being in the3 doldrums is costing his club a fortune HOWEVER the decision made by the board last week was the right one and was the one wanted by most of the Rangers fans I hear. What was being proposed breaches the rules. end of stopry, irrespective of who was on the panel, it breaks the rules, the rules that ALL member cluibs must adhere to. can't see the issue with this personally.