BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
Should this thread be merged with the existing one about the players being brought in?
-
All of these players have a decent to good pedigree but their careers have stalled for whatever reason. We desperately need at least one central defender a LMF player and an attacking midfielder and all those positions are represented on this group. As I said earlier, if only one of them comes good and helps us get promoted, I don't see the issue, especially if we are not paying them or only making a small contribution to their wages. It's just a pity that we couldn't have sent such as Boyd, Shiels, Faure, Smith etc in the other direction or anywhere north, south, east or west of Ibrox.
-
You would like to think that KMcD was asked what positions he felt most needed strengthening and Carver was then asked who he could do without; and it went from there, but I have my doubts. On the other hand it's hard to believe that the five were picked totally at random as being surplus to requirements. If Newcastle are paying the wages then one would suspect Rangers are paying the accommodation. Aird needs someone to share now that Macleod is away.
-
If any one of these players contributes to us getting promoted and we are not paying their wages then as a short term fix, I don't see the issue. The current squad aren't good enough and for whatever reason the youngsters are not getting a chance, so whatever it takes to get back to the SPL is fine by me.
-
They'll be on contracts till the end of the season; I'll refrain from further comment on your hero.
-
Who is paying their wages?
-
I agree with that statement, although it's not axiomatic, it is highly likely. However, what you said was "If FS wasn't invited then that's proof the rest of the board were not invited. " That most certainly is not axiomatic and it is not correct either because CM says she was invited but could not attend.
-
That's a matter for the Chair and since he invited her to attend one would have to conclude that he does not see it as an issue.
-
I can now say for sure that at least three members of the Board were not advised about the meeting or given the opportunity to attend.
-
I am gradually piecing this together. As I said earlier in the thread, it's my feeling that the Chair got the call from Llambias or someone on his behalf; CM has confirmed that only 3 were invited and she was one of the three (presumably the Chair, VC and someone in lieu of the Secretary). I have now verified that at least one other member apart from BP was not invited. That leads me to conclude that the Chair did some phoning around to get two people to go with him. That also leads me to conclude that what happened was contrary to the Constitution since the Chair does not have that power. I also understand that at least one member of the Board has or intends to express the same concerns.
-
Christine Murdoch has confirmed that the meeting was restricted to three people and that she was invited but was unable to attend. I have sent a more detailed email to Gary Gillan with formal questions on the specifics.
-
I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. Three people were at the meeting and another three are out of Scotland, including the Secretary Gary Gillan, so wouldn't have been able to attend at short notice. That leaves five: Christine Murdoch the Vice Chair, Billy Patterson, Zia Islam, Alan Fraser and William Gillan. Billy has already stated that he was not aweare of the meeting. I'm going to ask the others.
-
You really can't make a judgement on that unless you know whether others were in the same position.
-
OK. The alternative is to suppose that the Club Board do not trust any of the RFB other than those who were invited to attend the meeting? But we don't know that's how it went down. The Chair may have been asked to select two people to accompany him.
-
No argument with you on that; some of those long gone will be turning in their graves and indeed some still with us willl be equally horified.
-
Sound familiar? The decision about the ticket allocation for today's game was made before the reps got to the meeting and the RFB was used to legitimise it.
-
Saying it was majority vote, implies there were votes against; my understanding is that it was a unanimous vote of the majority of the Board who voted. There's an important difference which I'm sure you wouldn't want to fudge.
-
I take your first point, I was just drawing a comparison with what you said. It would have beeen the same comparison if it had been someone else who had already been removed. I don't underdstand your second point.
-
FS is not in aposition to comment on his colleagues. Tom Clements has a seat in Club Europe and made it his business pre the first meeting to let everyone who would listen know that it cost him £126-£150 per game to see the team play. I disliked the way he constantly interrupted folk (especially Alison) at the first meeting and would not have voted for him as Chair. It's my feeling that he is someone who will represent the interests of his constituency very well but that generally he is not someone who would want to be seen by the Club as rocking the boat. Alison Clark-Dick is a highly intelligent young lady with a history of campaigning and she is certainly not afraid to speak her mind or raise issues that need to be raised. That said IMO she is immature and prone to make statements first and think about their impact later. (And, YES, even mature people do that sometimes!) William Findlay is a very pleasant young man who represents the Under-18's but stated on his CV has no history of involvement with any committees, football clubs or community groups. He didn't speak at all at the first meeting. It's my opinion that whilst he may well mature into a confident person, he is out of his depth at the moment and I cannot see the value in his attendance at the meeting concerned.
-
The "away fans" have no voice and whatever you think about my removal, the Club chose not to replace me by co-option or election.
-
It reads to me that the full RFB can delegate. I agree. Only the full RFB can delegate powers to the Chair or any sub committee. Therefore unless the full RFB had delegated such powers to the Chair (and I don't recollect reading that in the Minutes of any of the Meetings) then he did not have the power effectively to form such a sub-committee. Of course he might argue that he just accepted an invitation to a formal or informal meeting and was entitled as Chair to accept the conditions placed on that meeting. Chairs generally have or trend to take on themselves quite wide ranging powers which they can enjoy subject to the confidence of the Board but in the case of the RFB the Chair's duties were set out as follows: The Role of the Chair • 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; • To be responsible for the good working of RFB, including managing any issues regarding the conduct of elected Representatives or their ability to undertake their role. • To intervene to resolve disputes between Elected Representatives and remedy any complaints or observations on the standards of behaviour of any Elected Representatives.
-
You are correct that the Club decided that the constituency was the members and that they selected the members of the Nomination Committee which was chaired by the Rev MacQuarrie. I had a number of disagreements with the good Rev but I did accept his assurance that they operated a scoring system that he has used elsewhere to decide the best qualified candidates (although in one or two categories they did not have a plethora of choices). However, at the end of the day there was a democratic election; none of the members of the RFB were "hand picked".
-
I suspect that what happened is that the Chair, Tom Clements, got a call inviting a maximum of three to a meeting with the two Directors on the proviso that other RFB members were not notified or invited. There's some sense in the Directors not wanting to meet the full RFB between meetings but there are no grounds for the other members not to be notified that the meeting was taking place. TC may well have reasoned that a mini meeting was better than no meeting at all. The RFB has the power to form sub committees: 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. 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. If I'm right he was wrong to accept the invitation without the agreement of the rest of the Board.
-
I don't know why you keep peddling this nonsense. All the candidates were selected on the basis of their CV's by the Nominations Committee who were independent of the Club and the election was conducted by an organisation independent of the Club. All the Board members were democratically elected. I can assure you that with my record, I'm the last person the Club would have hand picked for membership of the RFB, a fact that is perhaps proved by subsequent events.
-
None of them are morons; but IMHO two of them certainly are naive.
