IT would have been no surprise to Livingston's more cynical supporters that the widespread reaction to news of their possible expulsion from football was: yeah, whatever, but what could this mean for Rangers?

That response was predictably dismissive of the trauma being endured by the club in West Lothian but it was inevitable. Livingston were found guilty on four SFA charges relating to dual ownership because principle owner Neil Rankine also has an interest in East Fife. Their punishment will be decided in the coming weeks and will be shaped by whether Rankine sells one of his stakes. The case is being watched closely, because on January 27 the SFA will sit to discuss a similar set of charges against Rangers and Mike Ashley.

Similar, but far from identical. The two cases relate to the same issue but have key differences. Livingston were found guilty of failing to act in good faith, not acting in the best interests of football, and providing false, misleading and/or inaccurate information on Rankine's fit-and-proper suitability by failing to disclose his links to East Fife. The SFA's judicial panel ruled that Livingston, through Rankine, hold the power to influence another Scottish club.

The punishment for three of the four charges on which Livingston were convicted includes a maximum penalty of termination of the club's SFA membership, although that would seem unlikely. Livingston have until February 13 to show the SFA they are doing enough to address the situation and Rankine has until April 10 to divest one of his stakes. The less Livingston and Rankine do, the stiffer their punishment will be.

The charges against Rangers and Ashley are not quite the same. Take a deep breath before this reading this paragraph, but SFA disciplinary rule 19 states that except with the prior written consent of the board no-one "involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club" or who has "any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club" may at the same time either directly or indirectly be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club or have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club. Which is a verbose way of saying Ashley isn't allowed to run Newcastle and Rangers.

Livingston were charged with providing false/misleading/inaccurate information about Rankine and East Fife. Ashley's ownership of Newcastle and the extent of his stake at Rangers is no secret. The SFA even did a deal with Ashley acknowledging his stakes in both clubs (it was by signing that undertaking that Ashley put himself under SFA jurisdiction, which Rankine as an individual is not). Ashley agreed to limit his stake and involvement, but since then has placed two of his men on the PLC board. Derek Llambias became a director in November and Barry Leach, head of brands at Sports Direct, became finance director this month. Ashley cannot possibly argue that via his placemen he does not have the power to influence the management or administration of Rangers. But he will probably try.

The allegations against Rangers/Ashley are not as grave as those against Livingston. For a start, Livingston and East Fife swim in the same general pool. Rangers and Newcastle are not in direct competition. There is no accusation that Rangers or Ashley tried to mislead the SFA or falsify information.

Dual ownership can be permissible in some circumstances. Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson has openly considered a takeover of Australian side Newcastle Jets. But the situation is serious for Livingston and the Ashley disciplinary hearing will have implications for relations between Rangers and the SFA, and more importantly between Rangers and Ashley. Rangers' membership could be suspended: it won't be. Ashley could be fined: for all the good that would do. Or he could be ordered to cease his alleged breach of the rules by withdrawing his influence at Ibrox. He's unlikely to be bullied into that. If he doesn't like the verdict reached by the SFA it's pretty safe to assume he will will seek a judicial review.

By then Dave King, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor will have made decisive moves aimed at removing his control altoghether. From within the Rangers shareholding, and from within the SFA, Ashley us under fire on two fronts.

And Another Thing...

Celtic's winter break to Gran Canaria: shrewd idea or an act of self-indulgence which sends out all the wrong messages? If they return to begin a winning sequence in the upcoming league and cup ties it would suggest their players had been rested and rejuvenated by training and playing bounce games in the sunshine.

But when there was a general mid-season break top flight clubs complained that they returned rusty and could be caught cold when they immediately played third round ties in the Scottish Cup. It was a foul, horrible day in Paisley on Saturday but Aberdeen won again and again to move points clear at the top. The Celtic players have sunned themselves and had leisure time with their WAGs. If this was a few seasons ago, and they were under pressure from Rangers, there would have been no criticism of Celtic for unilaterally jetting off and letting their rivals build a lead. Because they wouldn't have done it.