BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
The flexibility to use our assets "to promote the success of the company".
-
Theoretically the Directors have always had the ability to sell Ibrox or any asset but I don't see how that could possibly "promote the success of the company" for reasons that are too obvious to need explanation. Ibrox' greatest value to the Company in purely financial terms would be as security for long term finance as has been the case in the past, so either selling it or granting security over it for a few thousand ST sales would be counter-productive. The incumbent directors may or may not be able to turn our business around but I don't get the impression that they are entirely stupid.
-
It is clear that the directors want and most likely need to have that flexibility given the current state of our finances.
-
OK then what is the mechanism?
-
Apologies should have said "Oh and I'm a fan and I have a ST and I don't want or feel the need for security over Ibrox or Murray Park in return for my ST "
-
There are no victors here. As I said there is no mechanism for "us"to get security over Ibrox and so far as I can recall there has never been any suggestion that it would be sold. I do not consider that it is reasonable to tie the Board's hands in the way you suggest even if such a mechanism were available which it is not. The assets are owned by a company, the directors have a duty to promote the success of the company or they would be failing in their fiduciary duty. If the company was owned by the fans then in effect they would own the stadium. Even if the fan groups together got to 5% of the shares (still a long way off) they would be in a postion to exert some influence.
-
So you accept that the march was a waste of time then?
-
Nice try but there is no way it can be offered so it's a non question to which there is no answer. But the best response I can give you is that I would not have joined Ibrox 1972 Ltd under any circumstances; the contract for my ST is between me and the Club and that is fine by me. I don't need or want 3rd party representation for my ST and Rangers aren't going to grant a 3rd party security for ST money anyway.
-
Que? What won't make much difference?
-
How exactly would you achieve that, given that the Ibrox 1972 Ltd scheme has been withdrawn? Oh and I'm a fan and I have a ST and I don't want or feel the need for security over Ibrox or Murray Park nor do I think that it would be reasonable for the company to grant such security even if I did want it. And I'm quite sure that I am by no means alone amongst the 20,000+ season ticket holders.
-
As you have been told repeatedly by various people on here, there is no mechanism to do that because there is no one corporate body that represents "the fans" even if the Board were minded to do it which they have said quite cleearly they are not.
-
If by "win this fight" you mean that the Board will grant security over Ibrox to some fans' group or that all the fans' share buying groups together will buy the Club then you are going to have a long wait, a very long wait indeed.
-
Poll for the Venue for the Second Semi Annual Gersnet Dinner
BrahimHemdani replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
T4C, Thank you for your advice, sorry you can't be with us to expound in person. If you PM me I'll let you have the bank details so you can send a contribution to the drink kitty. BH. -
Presumably it's implicit that any such fraud or dishonesty would have to be post 11 September 2013. Whilst "been guilty of" could mean anytime, I doubt that would be a reasonable interpretation, otherwise he could not have been appointed. Loose wording nonethless.
-
Apparently not stated in his contract other than 50/50 split between personal and company perfromance. Criteria, if any, set by remuneration committee. I would think they would be wise to publish the criteria but it appears that it is not a legal requirement for AIM companies.
-
Poll for the Venue for the Second Semi Annual Gersnet Dinner
BrahimHemdani replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
Only 5 votes so far; come on guys stop fence sitting and show some enthusiasm. -
Yes the Notes form part of the accounts. There was an error inthe Notes that has now been corrected. The figures were correct or at least have not been challenged.
-
Summer transfer window: Official ins/outs and transfer rumours
BrahimHemdani replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat
About his level or perhaps a little above; good luck to him. -
That's totally disingenuous of you. You know what I am saying. The note was wrong, there is no evidence that has been brought out to show that the figures in the accounts were in any way inaccurate, but pehaps you know of some?
-
That's a very good point. Certainly if he was awarded a 100% bonus and politely declined, he would gain an immense number of brownie points from everyone except perhaps GS and one or two others.
-
That would be very smart decision; but I doubt he'll turn it down completely; most likely defer some or all over 2/3 years.
-
That would be par for the course.
-
If my understanding is correct they are not all in receipt of salaries as directors, perhaps FS could clarify exactly who gets what in terms of salary and bonuses. Certainly the Wallace bonus situation will be a big test, for sure he will get A+ for effort and we have to wait on the company performance. I suspect that some part of whatever is awarded will be deferred due to current finances. I doubt that it will be used as an excuse not to pay any aprt of whatever is awarded. However if he gets the full 100% he would be well advised to defer some and forego some more. If he is awarded and takes 100% there will be hell to pay and rightly so.
-
The accounts were not inaccurate, there was an error in the Notes; that does not make the Accounts themselves inaccurate.
-
It would be interesting to know what part if any the fitness levels have in team selection; I suspect not a lot. Let's say, for example, that McCulloch was 25th out of 25, would he still be in the team? You betya he would. And let's say that McKay was the fittest, fastest thing on two legs, would he be in the team; probably not. So what's the point?