BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
These are very good points that I will do my best to take on Board. However, I think it is worth noting that "You can contact any one or more of the 12 elected candidates on any issues - they do not have to be issues for that particular category only. ". If someone choses to contact me with a "non away fans issue" then it might be because they think I will deal with it or put it forward when others might not. As most folk know, I have never been shy at coming forward! I have also mentioned (not sure if it was on here) that I have proposed that there be a general or secretary@ mailbox so that folks have a route for concerns to be addressed by the whole board. Whilst one will sometimes know the identity of certain posters, I do agree with you about "anonymous" comment, so in future I may ask from PM or email identification. That said I also had it mind to warn colleagues that email and the source thereof may not always be what it seems! -
There will be a Secretary in place as the election is being held at the beginning of the next meeting on the 26th of November. My personal opinion is that I would hope that the Minutes would be in a diffferent format. I am happy to answer anything that I can.
-
I am sorry if I missed your question, Rangersitis; as you say I pretty much spent two days solid answering points that have been raised into the early hours of the morning including before and after Cowdenbeath. Firstly, can I stress again that i did not raise this issue, I raised it on behalf of others and FS was kind enough to post the full thread from RM. Without spending another hour reading it again, I think certain names were mentioned and one at least was incorrect, inasmuch as Mr Dinnie obviously is an elected person (and perhaps others); the reason I agreed with the general point is twofold: We are fortunate to live in a democracy, whatever your views are on the constituencies etc, I and 11 others were elected to positions on the RFB, so I would suggest we have a certain legitimacy. (Whether or not that should extend to the wider Rangers support is another matter.) Leaders of the RST, RF, the RSA, etc have also been duly elected, so are entitled to speak on behalf of their constituencies. However, if a man stands up on a soapbox (with or without others) or is interviewed on TV as a Rangers fans spokesperson and he was not elected then I do not think he is entitled to that description. He can be called a Rangers fan, if he is one; but no more. The position obviously is exacerbated for those like me who do not agree with that person's position or the position of those he appears to represent. That said, I do not think that the fact I might agree with such a person wuld make his views any more legitimate; he is either elected or not. Secondly how do you know without an election that that person's followers are indeed happy with that person being their spokesperson? History is littered with such people whose rhetoric was louder than their legitimacy and I am not suggesting a comparison between any person you have named and any historic figure. But just because you can shout louder or pronounce a populist view doesn't make your views legitimate. There are others you have not named in Rangers recent history who have been rolled out just because for example they are former players, but that doesn't make their views any more important in my opinion. And yes, I know that's not quite the same point. I also want to reiterate that no member of the Board opposed the proposition on the night. The point about proposing a change to the Minutes is for accuracy. I did not name any individuals on the night so I will not be reqesting such a change. I know exactly what I said because I have the notes I read from. They will be the basis of my amendment. I realise that you may not agree but I have answered your question and apologise again for the delay. I think that the subject of the Minutes has had a good airing so unless there are any fresh points I propose to leave it at that.
-
Thanks for your considered response, Frankie. I take the poiint made by you and others that I will need to do some "filtering" of what I put forward but it is diffiuclt to do that and not be seen to censor legitimate views even if they are controversial. Also whilst PMU is right to suggest that I could easily just say I won't deal with anything unless it comes to the offical email address, I do not agree because Gersnet in particular gave me a public platform to defend my position in 2010, and I have been a regular contributor since then, so I don't see why I should not accept comment from here now. All forms of polite communication including verbal are acceptable as far as I am concerned. It is not my fault if "away fans" have more issues than others, so if I have more points to raise at meetings, then so be it. Also the position can be skewed when a person expresses views on here that they did not express at the meeting and also suggest that I said certain things that I did not. Thanks for continuing to allow me the platform on your forum.
-
06/11/2014 Guest of STEVEC GERSNET D BGC £19.50 Balance £295.66 That's us up to 17 folks with both Charltonman and SteveC bringing guests and rumour has it that Frankie might be bringing more than one. Just 30 days, 16 hrs and 5 minutes to go. WARNING Get your deposits in now guys or I can't guarantee you'll get a place at the tables.
-
Apologies for any confusion. I'll rephrase that then - "I declined an offer of reinstatement in 2010."
-
Thank you, I am doing my best but recognise that I certainly will not be able to please all the people all the time, or perhaps even some of the people some of the time. That said I do feel that some of the criticism has been a bit OTT. As to VB. I am not sure when I made that comment. I did apply to join VB in May I think and was accepted as a "probationer" in July but got my marching orders in September. At the time of my application for the RFB I indicated that I was active on 3 forums which was accurate at the time. I certainly never set out to deceive anyone on that point and D'Art can verify what I have said. Hope that clears it up.
-
Thanks for the advice. I think you mean "affect" my duties. If it does I'll be sure to point out that I declined an offer of reinstatement to FF in 2010.
-
I am not surprised that you might think so but I couldn't possibly agree. I am pretty sure that some members of the RFB are not active on any forums, I am active on two; I would be very surprised to learn that any are active on four; but in any event I do not think it is in any way necessary and it is certainly not a requirement.
-
Fortunately I am barred from FF and VB for that matter as well.
-
Zappa, I'm honestly not sure what it is you are looking for that I haven't already clarified. I think it is also true to say that most people would just have answered by saying the Minutes are there, make of them what you will. I haven't hidden behind that type of excuse and I seem to be suffering because of my openness. If there was a Secretary, then these questions might be better addressed to that person. I am not the Secretary and I did not take the Minutes. I have published the amendments that I proposed and were accepted. But let me try once again: I raised the issue of representation as requested by the RSA & William Montgomery. Irene Munro gave a brief answer as minuted and I agreed a slightly expanded form of words with her on 7/8 October which I then emailed to Drew Roberton and William Montgomery. I also raised the suggestion put forward by RM that the Club cease communicating with unelected groups. Minutes state - "Suggested that Rangers do not meet with other fans groups now that we have the RFB in place". I have already said that there is an error here inasmuch as the word "unelected" is missing and I will seek to have that added when the Minutes come up for adoption at the next meeting. My recollection is that their was a murmur of support, there was no one who opposed the suggestion, and it was agreed to put this to the directors at the next meeting. This is confirmed in the Minutes - "Agreed to discuss with the Rangers Board of Directors as to what their plans should be going forward" I had item (1) in a copy email and item (3) in a note. I think the order in the Minutes is correct but at this stage I cannot be certain and neither am I certain that the items were raised consecutively. In any event as I have said previously there was no relationship between the two items as they came from different sources.
-
Thanks for posting that link F'S. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever there to substantiate your claim that I suggested a change in the allocations between individuals and RSC's, far less an increase in away tickets for ST holders. In fact what I said was that "This goes back to the question of allocating tickets between individuals and buses; I will get more information on that. " This is born out by the other part of the Minute that you have highlighted which refers to the mention I made of having had a meeting with the TO Manager. So I ask again, who is it that is suggesting that I have made such a proposal?
-
NO I did not discuss that with anyone. I enquired about the percentages but have never suggested changes. TBH I've never even thought about it. Who is suggesting that I did?
-
I've deleted it GS, appreciate if you delete yours too; bit of afternoon silliness after taking a pounding.
-
No idea where you got that from Frankie; but for the avoidance of doubt I'll delete mine if you delete yours
-
05/11/2014 Counter Credit STEVEC GERSNET D BGC Balance Paid £9.50 Account Balance £276.16 31 days, 2hrs and 7 mins to go folks
-
Promises, promises.
-
I'll try to figure out a formula if you promise to leave me alone for 5 minutes.
-
Yes of course I did but perhaps not to the extent of the past 36 hrs or so. Fortunately some encouraging voices elsewhere I have to say.
-
I am sure you can; you are very persuasive GS; you even persuade me occasionally.
-
And herein lies the problem for the poor elected rep. One man's irrelevance is another man's important issue.
-
You're quite right I didn't.
-
Don't need a car; they always send a chauffeur. Did they forget the tie; as well as the pre, half time (Cowdenbeath Cheeseburger and Mars bar) and after match hospitality?
-
I can only speak for myself but I have answered or raised every point that has been put to me so far and duly slaughtered for some of them.
-
I am honestly not sure, the applications were submitted on-line by visiting fansboard.rangers.co.uk, so I guess you could say that they went via the Club but I do not know if they were passed electronically or otherwise to the NC. I see where you're coming from on this but I would suggest that if they had been "filtered" let's say, there are a couple of people at least who would have been filtered out. Also there was one person apparently who was "approved" by the NC who had to be asked to stand down by the Club because he had a commercial relationship with them. It was put to me (because believe it or not I do ask these difficult questions) that if there had been any filtering then that person's application would not have reached the Nomination Committee.