BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
Apologies if this has already been said but these comments don't seem consistent with McDowall being TOLD to play these players (albeit fitness could be his get out): "He explained, "All of the new boys are in the squad for Sunday and at the moment it's too early to say if any would be involved in the game. As ever, we'll have a look at the end of the week and see who is fully fit and who is not." "It sets a challenge to other players as their standards will have to be a bit higher now that the squad is a bit bigger - so it's good competition to have. It's the nature of a club like Rangers that you have to compete for places and it's up to you once you're in there to keep that place in the team." "
-
Yes, that may well be true; but I still don't see what he/the Board would have to gain by deliberately mis-stating the date of the AGM. To me that's completely counter-productive.
-
Whilst I don't see what LLambias & the Club Board would have to gain by deliberately misleading the RFB, I agree entirely with the rest of statement. This is exactly what the RFB is in place to say and do. So well done to them.
-
What would be the point in that, it's him that looks bad over it, not the RFB.
-
I think you have misunderstood FS and perhaps I should have drawn a line under the end of the email exchange. I've done that now for clarity This was not in the email, though as you say I believe your forum identity has been linked to your real name on numerous occasions and like me you make no secret of that fact.
-
I liked the distinctive old tie but never understood the yellow stripe. Does anyone know what it represented, if anything?
-
You are right to be bothered by it, it's part of our tradition, the old Govan colours. However it has happened frequently over recent years, there was a period (under Advocat I think) when we took to wearing blue socks with white tops because allegedly they were easier to see in floodlit games. We also switched to red socks and black tops one season. I spoke to AJ about that (when he was a mere director) after one particular AGM and was able to thank him for getting the change back to black and red the next season. I reminded him about that when I met him on a plane recently and he said that that was easier to achieve than the changes that Rangers need now.
-
The reason I sent the email was nothing whatsoever to do with having crosses to bear or otherwise. It was simply my opinion that the Board apparently insisting on certain players getting a game regardless of form or other considerations was much more serious in the overall scheme of things than a temporary failure to communicate with the RFB. However, I accept your point and theirs about the Motion on the table.
-
Reply from Gary Gillan on behalf of the RFB. As you say the Motion of No Confidence in the Rangers Board is still on the table and will remain so until after the next RFB meeting at which it will be discussed. When we have more information to communicate with all the fans, we will so do via the Facebook page. To which I responded; I have to be honest and say that that is not much of an answer to a very immediate issue particularly as the said players apparently will be playing on Sunday. May I also point out that not all of us are on Twitter (my error meant to say Facebook, although the point really applies to both). Can you not use Rangers' web site or email facilities to communicate with members? and he replied: I'm not sure what more you want us to say. On the football side, Kenny McDowall will do what he believes he's been instructed to do and the team will be the team. We have a Facebook page that we've communicated information through related to the conversations we've held with Derek Llambias, so the information is on the public domain now. As far as using other media it is something we're discussing as the RFB and hope to use all facilities available to us via Rangers as possible.
-
Email to Gary Gillan, Secretary of the RFB and replies in red. Gary, I'd like to ask you officially as Secretary of the RFB if you were aware PRIOR to the meeting last Wednesday that it was taking place. No I'd also like to know who instigated the meeting and exactly when and by what means the invitation was issued? I believe that Derek Llambias instigated the meeting following conversations with Tom Clements and Jim Hannah (separately) in the earlier part of the day. There was no formal invitation sent - it was done via conversation. Did the Club stipulate either the number of people who could attend or the exact people who were invited to attend or that specific people could not attend? Not at all. The club asked that RFB keep the numbers low and suggested no more than 3 people attend. At no time whatsoever was there a request for a particular person to attend or not attend. Did the Club stipulate that other members of the RFB were not be advised that the meeting was taking place and if so was the prohibition restricted to certain individuals (if so who) or general i.e. the other 7 or 8 including or exluding you? Not to my knowledge. They left it to RFB to organize. On the face of it a sub-committee consisting of the Chair and two other members of the Board met with Directors of the Club and this appears to be inconsistent with the Rule: 18.1 RFB may delegate any of their powers and discussions to any sub-committee consisting of two or more Elected Representatives; they may also delegate to the Chairman (or the holder of any other post) such of their powers as they may consider appropriate. if as stated "Not all members of RFB were aware of ........ the meeting". If members weren't aware of the meeting how could they delegate their powers to the sub-committee. This was initially intended to be an informal 'clear the air' discussion. It was not requested to be off the record per se, but there was a level of discreteness required so as not to exasperate the sensitivity of RFB's vote of no confidence. The Chair has the power ceteris paribus: • To plan the annual cycle of RFB meetings and set the agendas; • To chair meetings of RFB; • To be the first point of contact between the Club and RFB, liaising with the Elected Representatives and senior executives as appropriate; but I don't read that as saying that the Chair has the power effectively to appoint such a sub-committee without the knowledge never mind the consent of the RFB. We have subsequently met as the RFB this past Monday to have open conversations with each other about this particular topic, and a variety of others. At this meeting we did discuss the powers of office bearers and the communications gaps that existed during the process. If faced with a similar situation in the future then we will follow appropriate constitutional and communications protocols. It was an exceptional circumstance and one that we will definitely manage better in the future. I followed by asking if the meeting this past Monday had been minuted. The reply was "The meeting last week was simply an open conversation between RFB members. I did indeed take my own notes, but not minutes per se due to the flowing nature of the conversation. I personally wouldn't classify it as an official RFB meeting, therefore do not intend to publish the minutes." ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I have since been able to establish that the "meeting" was in fact a conference call. As previously mentioned the only person apart from those present who I have been able to establish that was aware of the meeting with the directors was the VC Christine Murdoch, who was unable to attend. I have been able to confirm that four other members of the board including Gary and FS (as stated by him on here), were not aware that the meeting was taking place.
-
If one accepts that and I'm not saying I do; does that then mean it is right or appropriate for the Directors to pick the team or even half the team?
-
They should be you're quite right. But would you give up that kind of money?
-
Aren't we a bit beyond the stage of being pragmatic?
-
That's a bit defeatist is it not?
-
Text of email to all members of the RFB. Dear Rangers Fans Board Members, On the 27th of January 2015 you passed a Motion of No Confidence in the Board of rangers Football Club, believing that they have "consistently failed to act in the best interests of Rangers Football Club and its fans" and "failing to communicate with the RFB in any meaningful way". This Motion remains on the table despite a "clear the air" meeting with Directors on 28 January 205. Today, we have had the astonishing revelation from the Interim Manager/ Coach, Kenny McDowall, that he has been instructed to play all five of the new loan signings from Newcastle in every match when they are fit to play. This outrageous instruction undermines the authority of the Coach and will lead to a split in the dressing room between the existing players who are not guaranteed a place in the team and the new players who are guaranteed to play. Furthermore it will make us the laughing stock of the football world. Looking to the future, no self respecting manager would ever come in and take the job on those conditions, so how are we going to employ a replacement of any quality? I call upon the RFB to issue a further and final Motion of No Confidence in the Board of Rangers Football Club with an invitation to them to withdraw this instruction to the Coach; failing which I call upon all members of the RFB to resign.
-
Yes you did and where did it get you?
-
Patience, I'm writing it right now.
-
I am going to email all members of the RFB and challenge them to reinforce their vote of no confidence in the Board as a result of their interference in the team selection process and invite them to resign if the Board do not reverse this ridiculous decision which will make us the laughing stock of the football world. I suggest others do the same or similar as they see fit.
-
I agree and the same goes for Ally but if we don't pay him, he would sue us and he would win because up until now he has not had the ultimate responsibility for picking the team or the tactics.
-
That must be the weirdest press conference that a manager or coach of a football team has ever given anywhere in the world. To openly admit that you have been instructed to play 5 new loan players every week, if fit, means that he has no authority whatsoever in the dressing room and no way to motivate the players concerned at the same time as he will lose the support of the rest of the dressing room (if indeed he has that right now) and there will be a clear divide between the chosen men of Newcastle and the rest. One thing he can be congratulated on is his honesty. I bet Llambias and Easdale were ill listening to him. On the other hand he has shown himself to be completely devoid of any self respect. His justification that "they have come up to play" beggars belief. I wonder if he is effectively challenging them to sack him for breach of confidentiality; but I honestly doubt if he's clever enough to figure that out. He was hesitant with his answer about what he would do if any of the 5 were not playing well, he muttered something about having subs to bring on. Let's say he pulled one off or just decided not to start one or other then would he be sacked for disobeying instructions? If so I bet he's have a queue of managers and coaches ready to speak in his defence at a tribunal for unfair dismissal. All that said, if ANY of these players are better than what we have in their positions then they SHOULD play; but no way should that be dictated to the coach by the directors. It's just outrageous. No self respecting manager would come in and take the job on those conditions, so how are we going to employ a replacement of any quality?
-
Approx £200,000 or perhaps £400,000 if his pay went back up to the previous level on giving notice in the same way as Ally.
-
What do you think of Vucic, he seems to have the best pedigree?
-
Does he mean "borrowing" do you think, such loose language from the Telegraph, tut tut.
-
The wages might be added to the debt?
-
I do see the BIG ISSUE, here, of course I do. But right now, we're in severe jeopardy of not getting back to the SPFL next season, and that would be a disaster of major proportions, especially if the only two Grade A games are removed next season by Hearts and Hibs going up. So I beg to differ, my good friend.
