Shareholder action against SPFL to protect Club

WATP

WATP

Well-Known Member
So here’s a thought that may it may not be with foundation Dave King is our single biggest shareholder, he is no longer part of the Rangers operations. He is now a shareholder only the same as you or I. From my own personal point of view, I was thinking that if the SPFL were to award Celtic the league then in fact this could be argued as share price affecting through a potential loss of revenue and standing of Rangers and therefore devaluing my investment...what say any lawyers on the forum?

Company law states that the board of any company must carry out their duties to the benefit of the business and it’s shareholders, so it could be argued then that UK company law supersedes Football articles and that Rangers and Hearts boards have no other option other than to take legal action to stop the SPFL from negatively impacting their respective Companies & shareholders.

Or in fact individual shareholders of Clubs like you, I and Dave King could legally challenge the SPFL decisions to award other competitors an unfair monetary advantage with injunctions to protect the value of our shareholding’s. Maybe even with potential class action too on any perceived damages to that group of individuals investments. No action could therefore be taken against the club by UEFA either in this latter scenario.

Thoughts from any legal eagles, any foundations to those 2 viewpoints?
 
WATP said:
So here’s a thought that may it may not be with foundation Dave King is our single biggest shareholder, he is no longer part of the Rangers operations. He is now a shareholder only the same as you or I. From my own personal point of view, I was thinking that if the SPFL were to award Celtic the league then in fact this could be argued as share price affecting through a potential loss of revenue and standing of Rangers and therefore devaluing my investment...what say any lawyers on the forum?

Company law states that the board of any company must carry out their duties to the benefit of the business and it’s shareholders, so it could be argued then that UK company law supersedes Football articles and that Rangers and Hearts boards have no other option other than to take legal action to stop the SPFL from negatively impacting their respective Companies & shareholders.

Or in fact individual shareholders of Clubs like you, I and Dave King could legally challenge the SPFL decisions to award other competitors an unfair monetary advantage with injunctions to protect the value of our shareholding’s. Maybe even with potential class action too on any perceived damages to that group of individuals investments. No action could therefore be taken against the club by UEFA either in this latter scenario.

Thoughts from any legal eagles, any foundations to those 2 viewpoints?
Click to expand...
Resolution 13! Love it !
 
I’ve said for years Club 1872 could challenge certain issues via the courts

SPL cannot be allowed to think they are out with the rule of UK law

Dungcaster and Maxwell at the SFA are two puppets who need brought back in line

There are 42 teams in Scotland not one
 
I'm far from a legal expert, but like the sound of that. Hopefully worth getting a proper opinion from someone who does know what they're talking about.
Makes sense to me and like the cut of your gib, OP.
 
Bluenose Rab said:
I'm far from a legal expert, but like the sound of that. Hopefully worth getting a proper opinion from someone who does know what they're talking about.
Makes sense to me and like the cut of your gib, OP.
Click to expand...
There are no penalties in taking the SPFL to court as they are simply a PLC and not the governing body.
 
being potentially deprived of the opportunity to quality for the UCL could be a whopper if shareholders decide that they might have a case re deprivation of income.

Not a legal type, but maybe there might be scope in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Surely to God this is exactly the sort of thinking that should be coming directly from the board?

They are successful business men and I don’t believe for a minute they would allow any of their own businesses to be shafted the way the club is about to be.
 
But is the 5 way agreement holding the board back , what did we agree to , I think there's something in it that the board have been so hush hush on many damaging things aimed at us , we as a supporter have to be asking what did we agree to to get our license back
 
Unfortunately the legal profession in Scotland is another that has been infested over the years and, as such, even if there was a case to answer our chances of success would sadly be limited as those that ultimately sit in judgement will have predetermined the outcome.
Even when judgements have gone in our favour in the past they have either been appealed and, if necessary, appealed again until they are overturned or they are simply ignored and we have been blackmailed into accepting that fact.
 
Taking shareholder action as described in the OP would be great and, as a shareholder myself, I'd be all in.

But I seem to remember this being discussed in the dark days of Somers, Llambias, Leach and the Boulder Brothers. The only way shareholder power worked in that case was to vote the spiv bastards out. (What a day that was!)

I don't see how that can be applied to the SPFL, but if there's a way that could work, count me in!
 
Been screaming (metaphorically) on every social media outlet I am on that Club1872 should be looking at this type of route and also getting the word gently out there that they are doing so! The awarding of a title cannot be clear cut , if it were it would be done with no hesitation! The fact there is debate must mean they have a doubt either highlighted by their own legal team or simply via their own suppress conscience !
 
Coallie said:
But is the 5 way agreement holding the board back , what did we agree to , I think there's something in it that the board have been so hush hush on many damaging things aimed at us , we as a supporter have to be asking what did we agree to to get our license back
Click to expand...
The 5 way agreement by a previous board cannot supersede the requirement of the incumbent board to adhere to company law, would be my layman’s view.
 
A problem we have is the narrative has been set over the past month by celtc motivated and minded media lickspittles. I have posted this on another thread....This celtc propagated lie is sickening me.

Everyone seems to have accepted the following as gospel when it's really NOT TRUE.

"Voiding the season was also being put to members but is not considered a realistic option as it would lead to contractual problems and possible litigation".

lies lies and damned lies. Awarding them a false title will surely lead to litigation as well. Hopefully the board will 'not be found wanting in the battles to come'.
 
That is an interesting idea.
If club 1872 were to take the action no penalties could be levied against Rangers.
@Christine1872 I know you are not on the board anymore but this should be put to members? Any chance of passing on?
I’m pretty certain we could raise enough money to pay for the legal fees.
 
Coisty09 said:
That is an interesting idea.
If club 1872 were to take the action no penalties could be levied against Rangers.
@Christine1872 I know you are not on the board anymore but this should be put to members? Any chance of passing on?
I’m pretty certain we could raise enough money to pay for the legal fees.
Click to expand...
on Raising funds, Club1872 could ask for extraordinary donations with a caveat that if they were not fully used for legal reasons they would be used in any near future share issue ! I’d start the fund rolling !
 
[QUOTE
WATP said:
So here’s a thought that may it may not be with foundation Dave King is our single biggest shareholder, he is no longer part of the Rangers operations. He is now a shareholder only the same as you or I. From my own personal point of view, I was thinking that if the SPFL were to award Celtic the league then in fact this could be argued as share price affecting through a potential loss of revenue and standing of Rangers and therefore devaluing my investment...what say any lawyers on the forum?
Click to expand...

I have suggested previously that a group of us who are small shareholders should consider a legal challenge to matters that are likely to affect shareholder value but that club can’t take legal action on as a consequence of the association articles which prevent member clubs taking legal action against football authorities. One such area was the performance of the compliance officer.
My understanding is that if we could show that the actions of the football authorities are counter to natural justice we would have a supportable case. First step would be to get together and arrange to consult a QC. It would be best if Club 1872 would lead, in my opinion.
I am absolutely in.
 
Blueknows said:
[QUOTE


I have suggested previously that a group of us who are small shareholders should consider a legal challenge to matters that are likely to affect shareholder value but that club can’t take legal action on as a consequence of the association articles which prevent member clubs taking legal action against football authorities. One such area was the performance of the compliance officer.
My understanding is that if we could show that the actions of the football authorities are counter to natural justice we would have a supportable case. First step would be to get together and arrange to consult a QC. It would be best if Club 1872 would lead, in my opinion.
I am absolutely in.
Click to expand...
I’m a shareholder and a member of Club 1872 and I do think you’re correct that Club 1872 would be ideally placed to lead but with open arms to all small shareholders to join in too. An injunction or threat of injunction against the SPFL paying out the prize monies based on placing could alone bring the house of cards down!
 
WATP said:
I’m a shareholder and a member of Club 1872 and I do think you’re correct that Club 1872 would be ideally placed to lead but with open arms to all small shareholders to join in too. An injunction or threat of injunction against the SPFL paying out the prize monies based on placing could alone bring the house of cards down!
Click to expand...
I believe Club 1872 are a single shareholder, although they hold many shares. I imagine a lot of individual shareholders, albeit holders of small numbers of shares, would add weight to any action by showing that there are many of a similar view.
 
Some great points here.
I had a similar conversation today.
How can the spfl just take away our club having the chance of earning 14 million pounds ? And just hand it to the tramps just like that ? Surely they could be sued for loss of potential income ?
Glad theres some smarter brains on here than mine.
Good work lads
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top