Jump to content

 

 

BrahimHemdani

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BrahimHemdani

  1. BrahimHemdani
    OK, happy to take your word for that (or perhaps I missed that part of the announcement - genuine comment) since I know Mr King keeps you up to date I fully expected you to bring a suitcase full of used rand to the dinner but can see that we will have to bring forward the next one if the Club is to be saved.
  2. BrahimHemdani
    My second comment was meant to be a tad ironic. I am quite sure that Ashley has seen a major business opportunity in Rangers and will have no qualms in owning two (or more) football clubs.
  3. BrahimHemdani
    I didn't suggest it was paltry.
  4. BrahimHemdani
    I didn't say that, I suggest you check your facts. Did King contradict that i.e. did he say he showed proof of funds and named all the members of his consortium?
  5. BrahimHemdani
    And a very and a happy and prosperous New Year to you and all Gersnetters and all at our beloved Rangers.
  6. BrahimHemdani
    No he has not and he's not in a minority of one either.
  7. BrahimHemdani
    Rangersitis, you and I don't often agree but we can be civil. You and others disagree with RR but it is out of order IMHO to call another fan an "enemy".
  8. BrahimHemdani
    That seems a bit harsh to me. Like me RR's opinions are often in the minority but he is consistent and I believe very sincere.
  9. BrahimHemdani
    Lawwell, Regan, Petrie and Thomson, saviours of Rangers, GS?
  10. BrahimHemdani
    Nor does he need to sit on the RIFC board to have influence as clearly demonstrated by the antics of the said Mr S Easdale. The "fit and proper" test in Article 10 applies to "any official, office-bearer, secretary, director or member of the board of management or committee of such member and of its or his associates as defined in Article 13.5 in any other member"
  11. BrahimHemdani
    They are indeed but they do have discretion and as I suggest above there is precedent and that discretion must be there for a reason. I don't see that any possible conflict within European competition is relevant at this time.
  12. BrahimHemdani
    If you're selling strips, I would think that's obvious; but ultimately Ashely may not want to own two football clubs.
  13. BrahimHemdani
    I'm not sure that this is a bad rule or that if it is a bad rule then that is a good rwaosn for it not to be applied. There are two sides to this as I see it. The SFA have rules about dual ownership/influence and I'm sure they exist for a number of reasons mostly to do with sporting integrity 13.2 Except with the prior written consent of the Board, any person who (i) is a member of a club, (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of a club may not take up any such role with another club until such time as the Scottish FA is reasonably satisfied that such person has ceased to hold such role in the first club. If Without prejudice to the foregoing, (i) any club or nominee of a club and (ii) any person who (a) is a member of a club, (b) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club or © has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of a club is required to notify the Board in writing within 7 days of any event which results, or would result, in it/him being entitled to hold or own, or its/his acquisition or dealing with, securities or shares in excess of 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such club. This Article 13.3 is not to be construed as excluding from the ambit of Article 13.1 any holding by a club or a person to whom such Article applies of shares equal to or less than 3% of the issued share capital of another club or the holding company of such club. 13.5 For the purposes of this Article 13: (a) “club” means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA; (b) “person” includes any body corporate and a partnership; So there is no question that the SFA re entirely within their rights to refuse Ashley permission to own more than 3% of Rangers IFC. But they do have discretion and presumably they have discretion for the reason that a person being in a position to influence two Clubs is not necessarily always a bad thing. I would suggest that the rule exists to prevent a breach of sporting integrity if for example one person were to own or have influence in two clubs in the same competion there are obvious ways were sporting integrity could be compromised e.g. the loan of players of one club to another. This could apply if one person owned two clubs in the SPFL or within Europe as has been well-rehearsed. But if the two clubs do not play in the same competition, to my mind, the issue is less obvious. Take the example of Hearts. Romanov owned or at least had influence over both Hearts and Kaunas. He was "allowed" to acquire 29.9% of Hearts by buying Robinson's shares in 2005 and went on to own more than 80%. Kaunas then loaned numerous players to Hearts, including three well known to Rangers fans: Marius Žaliūkas, Roman Bednář and Linas Pilibaitis who reurned to Kaunas and knocked us out of Europe with his headed goal in the dying minutes in August 2008. Whilst Romanov was constantly in trouble with the SFA for his ridiculous outbursts I don't recall him being taken to task for dual ownership and I don't recall it being said that the fact that Hearts were stacked full of Lithuanian players prejudiced the sporting integrity of the SPL. Given this precedent I would be interested to learn in what way "the Board (considers that consenting to Ashley's request would be against) the interests and public profile of Association Football, its players, spectators and others concerned with the game" as required by Rule 13.6; rather than simply an attempt to create further financial embarrassment for Rangers. Obviously there would be an issue if and when Newcastle and Rangers were in the same European competition but that is at least two year's off and Newcastle have only been in Europe twice in the past 10 years. I doubt that is the reasoning at the moment, if there is any reasoning; and I also doubt that the SFA could reasonably take that into account at this stage.
  14. BrahimHemdani
    And how exactly would you define the "right hands" and who are "we" exactly and what gives you/we the right to make that decision. If Ashley buys new shares the money goes to the Club, what's wrong with that?
  15. BrahimHemdani
    You're surely still not clinging to the £50m nonsense, or £30m for that matter. Last I heard it was £16m with no proof of funds and only half coming from Mr King and half coming from 8 others only 4 of whom he was prepared to name.
  16. BrahimHemdani
    Why do we need three coaches anyway?
  17. BrahimHemdani
    Not yet but the Fiorentina one always looks great.
  18. BrahimHemdani
    Publicly what else could they say. His legendary (playing) status meant that he was above public criticism as a manager (paraphrasing Somers). He's a duff manager and the sooner he goes the better?
  19. BrahimHemdani
    Freddie George, analyst at Cantor Fitzgerald, said: “The company has a dominant market positioning in the UK and a great opportunity to develop the brand in overseas market. " "There has, however been less visibility on prospects. The company has become more acquisitive, recently acquiring interests in MySale, Debenhams, and fitness centres, which has led us to deduce that the development of the company’s internet platform has become less of a priority.” George Scott, senior consultant at Conlumino, warned the company’s fashion chains, which include USC and Republic, were a concern amid declining sales. He said: “Sports Direct is ultimately setup to continue to dominate the sports retail sector. Despite recent challenges, its core sports retail business boasts a compelling positioning and a number of promising pathways for growth, both organically and through acquisition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11288632/Mike-Ashley-holds-stakes-worth-almost-200m-in-rival-retailers.html
  20. BrahimHemdani
    If anyone is entitled to be sceptical I think you will agree that I would be near the top of the queue; but I find it difficult to believe that any director would tell an outright lie to the RFB on a matter of fact.
  21. BrahimHemdani
    Well that's a bit different, LG; and something we can perhaps agree to disagree on.
  22. BrahimHemdani
    You're the man who said a moment ago it was an onerous contract. Whatever, GW may have said or implied it seems the current Board do not agree.
  23. BrahimHemdani
    Davies would have been my choice if Ally had resigned with immediate effect or accepted some kind of pay-off if indeed one was offered.
  24. BrahimHemdani
    That may well be the plan.
  25. BrahimHemdani
    And who would that be, Sir? Davies, McCall, Butcher who then?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.