Where do you draw the line with ownership and control? With the expected resignation of Rangers supremo Graham Wallace coming today (as apparently demanded in the terms of Mike Ashley's power-play for the Scottish club), Mike Ashley has effectively seized control of the boardroom with a display of breath-taking cut-throat business, masquerading behind a charitable rescue. He has basically painted Rangers into a corner, and somehow convinced the board that the best deal for them is selling their souls to the commercial devil. Quite what the mentality behind Ashley's power-play is remains to be seen: he has financial concerns at heart, clearly, and probably sees investment in Rangers as potentially reaping greater benefits for less cost than continued investment in Newcastle. Yes, the Premier League prize money and TV money is more lucrative, but the opportunity to have his brand globally advertised if Rangers qualify for Europe again soon would be the type of brand-building win that he constantly seeks for Sports Direct. Choosing one or the other might look like a difficult prospect, with Newcastle fans pinning their hopes on the fact that Rangers would mean having to put his hand in pocket less - and the chance of domestic success increasing the prospects of commercial success with Rangers merchandise (something he has seen fail at Newcastle because of the perceived toxic influence of Sports Direct on the Newcastle club shop). Success will come easier for Rangers, with less money, and he would be lauded as the saviour he wants to paint himself as by Rangers fans who've had to suffer a lot more than Newcastle fans in the past few years. Unfortunately for those optimistic Newcastle fans, Ashley will soon probably be able to reap the benefits of effectively owning both clubs. He will control Rangers board-room (especially if he does indeed choose to bring in the notoriously bullish Derek Llambias), and will continue to run Newcastle, reaping the financial benefits of merely existing in the Premier League. Yes, he has to endure being hated, but hundreds of millions in TV money has a remarkably good knack of blocking out being called a fat cockney anything. The SFA have sold their own souls to the devil in allowing Ashley to make this power-play without insisting Ashley relinquishes control of Newcastle. They will continue to cling on to their 10% limiting clause, and the fact that UEFA won't allow teams owned by the same party to compete in the same competition, but there are so many loop-holes left in both situations that one of the fundamental laws of club ownership is basically being openly flouted without punishment. Some will say that it's fine, because there's no conflict of interest as long as Newcastle and Rangers cannot play in the same competition, but that assessment seems to simply assume that Newcastle will not qualify for Europe, and that Rangers cannot anyway. Both assessments would be wrong (and anything that plays so fast and loose with definitions of genuine legislation shouldn't ever be allowed anyway) - Newcastle COULD qualify for the Europa League theoretically as long as they are in touch with the top six or seven teams in the Premier League (currently a not massive 4 points away), and Rangers could qualify as either winners or runners-up of the Scottish Cup (depending on the other finalist). So while it is unlikely for both teams to qualify for the same competition, it is not entirely impossible, and there should be absolutely no wiggle room in a law. That sort of loop-hole encouraging has already seen major clubs like Man City and PSG openly flout the financial fair play rules that simply cannot dent them thanks to their wealth, and if the same sort of careless logic under-pins club ownership, it will be to the cost of the game. But what do the SFA care if they can count on the continued existence of a major club like Rangers? The competition needs the money Rangers will bring back when they hit the Scottish Premier League, so it's not like they can make an informed, objective decision on Ashley's Rangers meddling without cutting off their own nose. We need a third party to come in and adjudicate, because owning both clubs effectively will probably have more of a negative impact on Newcastle than it ever will on Rangers.