The Scottish FA "will defend itself in court after being dragged into the conflict" between Scottish Championship side Rangers shareholder Mike Ashley and Ranger Chair Dave King, according to Michael Grant of the LONDON TIMES. Ashley, who has 8.9% of Rangers shares in addition to owning EPL side Newcastle, has petitioned for a Judicial Review of the SFA’s decision to approve King as a "fit and proper" person to serve on the Ibrox board. King faced opposition ahead of joining the board because of his convictions for tax offenses in South Africa as well as having served on the "oldco" Rangers board. But in May the SFA "approved him as suitable to become a director and then chairman." Ashley "has challenged that decision-making process and the case will come to court" on Feb. 4. If Ashley’s claim is successful the "fit and proper" verdict on King would be quashed and he would have to step off the Rangers board until an SFA decision on his suitability was considered and taken again (LONDON TIMES, 11/12).
TURF WAR: In London, Roddy Forsyth wrote as the "turf war" between Ashley and Rangers widened, the possibility of the Ibrox club being stripped of titles "has fuelled concern among several clubs, who fear financial repercussions." The status of the five Scottish championships, four Scottish Cup wins and six Scottish League Cup successes recorded by Rangers between '01 and '11 "has been called into question since the decision by the Court of Session in Edinburgh to uphold HMRC’s appeal against the rulings of two previous tribunals." Calls for the annulment "were fuelled by the observation of one of the three Court of Session judges, Lord Drummond Young," that had the trusts not existed, some players "might well have taken their services elsewhere." Both the Scottish Professional Football League and the SFA "have referred the matter to their lawyers for scrutiny" but one chairman, who asked not to be identified, said, "There is a strong feeling amongst clubs that this has to be handled extremely carefully because of the possible consequences. Suppose for the sake of argument Rangers are stripped of all the honors they won during the time they operated EBTs. Do we award those honors to the runners-up -- and trigger the bonuses that would have been paid to the players who were on their books then if they had actually won the trophies? Celtic might be able to afford that but nobody else could." Another chairman said, "I certainly don’t fly any flag for Rangers and my view is that the EBT scheme was questionable and maybe even reckless from the start but they were given expert advice and they acted on it and it has taken the taxman three tries to get a favorable result" (TELEGRAPH, 11/12).
