BrahimHemdani

This the problem with the play-offs, Steve or any other game for that matter. However, with today's result at Easter Road, a win tommorrow would put us 3 points clear of Hibs with a game in hand and just 6 games left so 2nd place is getting closer. I may have another option and will put up a poll tomorrow night with a short deadline, so you can book by midweek. I am aware that travel is an issue for a number of people, so we need to get on and decide.

As I said the invitation was issued with the approval of then Chair of the RST, Stephen Smith. I have nothing further to add.

No, sorry it was directed at the poster.

A reminder that the poll closes at 8.00pm tomorrow night and it is literally neck and neck, so every vote counts.

It is not my dinner, Sir, I am just organising it on behalf of Frankie and Gersnet. Come to the dinner or don't come to the dinner, that's your choice, but spare me and the rest of us your angst.

A friend of mine offered some assistance and his presence was approved by the then Chair, Stephen Smith; but Mr Dingwall objected and he took no further part. And I didn't turn up at said meeting, I hosted it in my offices.

It really is too close to call right now. The poll will be open for another 48 hours and your vote really does matter.

These smart phones can't be all that smart it seems to me, MB, will do. Thanks.

Absolutely not, that's a scurrilous suggestion; I may have been involved in some controversies in my time but none in relation to the introduction of McColl. I was introduced to McColl's lawyers as a person of standing in the financial community, with Rangers connections (I had just been elected to the Board of the RST about 6 months earlier), who could be trusted not to reveal his identity until he wished it to be so. I introduced a top accountant to the RST and worked diligently with colleagues to produce the 5-year financial plan under which McColl was going to underwrite the fans' £30m bid for the Club; and I physically delivered it to the lawyers on behalf of the RST. McColl approved the Plan but against advice took it to his bank, who promptly showed it to SDM, who then leaked the story, causing McColl major embarrassment and he withdrew from the deal. If that plan had gone through, there is every chance that the fans would own the club by now and none of what has transpired in the intervening years would have happened. Which part of that is it that you find controversial?

Your taking this out of context, dB. The highlighted comment is in relation to the SFA fit and proper test. I see no reason why King should not lend the club money whilst he is still subject to the SFA fit and proper test to become a director. But in answer to your question, T3B have lent the club money and allegedly he has much more of the stuff than all of them put together so why not? Half a million each would have made it a nice round £2m and that's petty cash to him, is it not?

I have consistently stated that I do not want King any nearer our club than I wanted S Easdale but the reason is well documented and has nothing to do with their wealth or lack of it. On the contrary to what you say, actually I was in the vanguard or trying to get high net worth individuals to invest in the club, the most notable being the highest net worth person in Scotland, Jim McColl. My actions as a supporter do indeed speak louder than words: I have followed Rangers from the north of Scotland (and since you mention it, nearly had MY dick frozen off in Peterhead) to the south of England and through 32 matches in 21 countries in Europe; from Shearer and Caldow to Foster and Wallace; just who exactly are you to question my loyalty to the Club. Most of the rest of what you say is just utter nonsense but I'm not going to not dignify your comments or personal attacks with any further response.

Another statement of the obvious; it's clear we are not being told the whole story here.

I see no inconsistency. I agree that Whyte and King are very different in many respects; but that is not the point I'm making. The point is that having once been thwarted in their attempts to vet a (prospective) Rangers director, the SFA will not be thwarted again. The excuse is feeble because it is not relevant to King lending the club money, he will not lose that money if he is not found fit and proper by the SFA. The hurdle is indeed a big obstacle but it's an obstacle to King becoming a director; it is not an obstacle to him lending the club money.

I am sorry but I still see no reason why King should not lend the club money at this time; he's not going to sell his shares if he is not approved, or is he? I any event, he declared himself confident that the SFA would find him fit and proper.

I'd say that much is relatively obvious.

There has been no vote on the date, TB, but I concluded the thread by saying that since no one stepped forward to organise something on the 25th of April, I was going with either the 23rd or the 16th of May with the 23rd hopefully looking more likely. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?69407-Possible-Dates-for-the-3rd-Semi-Annual-Gersnet-Dinner/page8 #77 That said, I may now be able to organise it for the 25th of April if preferred. I am planning to re-activate the date thread possibly with a poll after we see what happens on Sunday. I'm quite happy for you to vote in the poll for venue.

And your point is caller.......(they have done the right thing and King has not, perhaps?)

The SFA's decision on King being fit and proper or otherwise is anything but a formality. One reason they will be very careful this time is precisely because Whyte's lawyers gave them the run around last time until it was too late.

My understanding is that T3B are unhappy with only one place on the Board and the more so given that they have provided the most recent loan. I see no reason why King lending money to the Club would be seen as adverse by the SFA; on the contrary it might be seen as evidence of good intent. The SFA "fit and proper" rules are clear and he will be judged against those. There is no governance issue here and hence no reason not to lend the Club money. It's just an excuse and a feeble one at that.

But it's an additonal expense that we could do without is it not?

Sorry, GS I have no idea who or what is meant by "3 names". The rumour came to me from a source in the city.

Yes, I read that FS. Are you suggesting that JPJ are providing their services to Rangers for free?

Yes, thank you for that; but I would respectfully suggest that some ambiguity remains. The sentence clearly refers to the NOMAD and no NOMAD = no AIM listing. However, the sentences: clearly refer to AIM. So I would submit that it is not clear whether or not AIM would have re-listed the shares if a new NOMAD was appionted or not. Also as, I said earlier, and at least one other poster appears to consider, my information is that this was not the whole picture.

I won't go into any great detail either despite the provocation but I am going to correct you on two points and assure you on another: I never attacked John Bennett. For reasons that are well known and well rehearsed I could not support this appointment to the Board of Rangers FC in 2012 but I have made it clear that I now support his appointment to the Board of Rangers International FC. He is a high calibre investment manager. I have been a fanatical supporter of Rangers FC for 58 years. Thank you for your concern for my well-being; but I can assure you that I wouldn't harm a flea never mind myself.

The poll is now closer than the result of the Leader's Debate. If you are at all considering attending but have not yet voted please do so now. Every vote really does count.