BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
I have a great deal of sympathy with this view, the only question being is it worth pursuing? Whilsts Whyte's lawyers now stand effectively convicted of "Breach of undertaking, breach of trust, deceit/conspiracy" this was in connection with the takeover; whereas if I understand it correctly, it was the failure to pay over PAYE/NIC that led directly to the administration. HMRC will have well documented opinion to show that they were right to pursue the BTC and equally that they were right not to accept the settlement offer per se, as well as the case had wide ranging implications; and there can be no argument that they were right to pursue the PAYE/NIC. The SFA for their part will say that they dealt with the situation as it was presented to them at the time. We may possibly have a case for recovering the money newco paid on behalf of oldco but if oldco aren't able to recover the money themselves then the creditors are hardly going to hand the money back. Sadly the loss of prestige and income at home and in Europe also is irrecoverable. We most certainly do now have the moral high ground (except for non payment of PAYE/NIC); but whether it is anything more than a pyhrric victory remains to be seen.
-
Let's separate the two parts of the sentence you highlight: However a membership organisation with no membership fee really is meaningless This is a concept that is grasped by the RST for example who considered boosting their numbers by introducing free membership but rightly concluded that if they allowed all and sundry to sign up for nothing then the end result equally was nothing. Consider also Ibrox 1972 Ltd, not a membership scheme but lauded in much the same way. It cost nothing to sign up, the "commitment" was worthless in the event of the conditions not being fulfilled and even its biggest supporter on here admits that there was never any chance of that. So however many signed up, the number was meaningless. and begs the question of who is funding their expenses and for what purpose? I do my best to deal in facts that I can prove and have been taken to task here before for stating as fact that Mr King didn't have any shares in newco when I did not know that to be a fact. Now I can guess that Mr King is funding SoS/UoF but I don't recall any public statement to that effect. So I don't know it to be a fact, perhaps you do. Secondly, I can guess that if Mr King is funding SoS/UoF then his reason might be to further his own bid for ownership of the Club; but here again I don't know this to be a fact and some might take issue with my supposition. None of the above is a comment towards fellow fans, snide or otherwise.
-
With as much success as the aforementioned?
-
I think you spoiled your argument with the final paragraph. There's evidence for your interpretation of everything else; but there's no evidence other than the non-denial re Murray Park of any intent to sell our most valuable assets. Some duff players perhaps if we could but not the stadium or training ground.
-
I didn't say I disregarded the print media; I was commenting on the front pages posted on here.
-
I could understand a reasonable person having difficulty believing that it was an innocent mistake but without evidence of the internal procedures it's difficult to know. I would be surprised if AIM didn't make a determination of "fault" public. I was involved in financial services regulation and publicity is one of the most important weapons that a regulator has at its disposal both in terms of punishing the miscreant and more importantly deterring others.
-
Given that their involvement with UoF & Ibrox 1972 Ltd has been a massive failure, credibility would appear to be an issue.
-
Whilst I don't agree with their current stance on ST's, I would complement them for trying to be better organised than just a one or two man band. However a membership organisation with no membership fee really is meaningless and begs the question of who is funding their expenses and for what purpose?
-
ROSS McCormack £11m move to Fulham
BrahimHemdani replied to ian1964's topic in General Football Chat
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/england-signed-ross-mccormack-leeds-7390988 Sports News in embarrassing slip after former Cardiff City striker moves to Fulham According to the Guardian " Everton paid Wigan £13m for the Glasgow-born Republic of Ireland international James McCarthy in September last year." but I suppose you may not count him as Scottish in a football sense? http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/08/fulham-sign-ross-mccormack-leeds Saw McCormack score the goal in Porto that took us to the CL last 16. As with many others, we let him go too soon. -
Never really thought of Ralph Brand like that but I was really too young to appreciate that side of things, unlike some obviously! Your analogy would apply to de Boer as well, only Mols was on the same wavelength, others like Lovenkrands were not on the same level of football understanding.
-
The fact that we take completely opposite views of this doesn't mean that one or other of us is stirring it.
-
On the contrary, there is no prospect that withholding ST money, far less marching on Ibrox will remove the Board. Your hero Mr King could do that quite easily for his supposed £30m but where is he now? Quite what this has to do with financial advice is beyond me; but you needn't worry since I retired from that business at the end of 2012.
-
True. It was around that time that effctively we began playing 4-2-4 with McMillan (later Andy Penman) and Baxter in what began to be called the midfield.
-
I am comforted by the fact that you believe me now even although the way you characterise my comments is distasteful. What I said was that the fact that I do not trust Mr Dinnie has no bearing on my view of the march. The Reason I posted #84 was that Rangersitis said that I “disguised personal animosities from previous dealings as the real reason for wanting it to flop.” which, as I said is complete and utter nonsense. I wanted to admit that I have a personal animus towartds Mr Dinnie for the reason stated but that I knew nothing of the others before SoS/UoF. I would disapprove of fans encouraging others to withhold ST money or indulge in futile marches, whoever was organising them.
-
Perhaps no coincidence then that Di Stefano played the same role beside Puskas for Real. Jimmy MIllar for us maybe, as he started out as a half back and finished his career playing deeper. Ralph Brand was always the main striker in modern parlance.
-
I can see that you have studied this in depth whereas I haven't studied it at all; so happy to leave the conspiracy theories to you.
-
I don't normally comment on the print media as I don't read newspapers. The point I was making was that I criticised the Sport for an inaccurate headline; but the much criticised Record got it right this time.
-
Believe it or not I put in the phrase that you highlighted because I could see that there may well have been a reason but I was looking for someone to highlight the reasons. It's possible that the Board or perhaps someone within the Board set out to deliberately mislead shareholders and its equally possible that it was a genuine mistake. One wonders if AIM will consider it a sufficiently serious matter to investigate. If they do, you may well get your answer. Goal Germany!
-
I have booked up to go down by train during the day Friday (perk of being semi-retired) and am staying in a central hotel in Derby. I see FS will be there, any others fancy a Gersnet night out?
-
Not quite in the same league but a huge goalscorer in total scoring 145 goals in his 163 games for Rangers, his 50th goal for the club coming in his 45th appearance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Forrest_(footballer_born_1944). I'm pretty sure he scored 5 or 6 in a 7-1 Rangers at Hamilton win that I was at in 1966. Wrongly made one of the scapegoats for Berwick (along with George McLean) and never played for us again.
-
A Freudian slip perhaps?
-
I can only reiterate:
-
I suppose it is arguable that the entire Accounts are incorrect because there is an error in the signed statement but I think that is stretching things a bit far. So long as the figures are accurate then I don't think there is a major issue with the accounts; embarrassing as it is for the Auditors in particular. It seems to me that everything flows from the exercise of the option and someone somewhere woke up to the fact that it wasn't in the notes to the accounts. Unless you are suggesting that Stockbridge deliberately delayed exercising the option until a significant number of ST renewals had been achieved; I don't see that the two are connected. However, before you say it; I would concede that there may have been an agreement behind the scenes although it's hard to see why Stockbridge would want to do the Club any favours.
-
I cannot be sure as you rightly point out but equally I didn't suggest that. All I am saying is that the error is in a note to the accounts not the accounts themselves; I don't think that invalidates the accounts. I agree that "There will be those who think that it was a deliberate ploy to hoodwink the fans and the shareholders in the lead up to what could have been an extremely difficult AGM " and on the face of it, it is a significant error which might lead a reasonable person to that conclusion but without evidence it is all guesswork. Much the same I would suggest as a great many of the things that were levelled against Stockbridge; without evidence of instructions that he was given, we cannot know for certain what he might have failed to carry out or carried out ineffectively or wrongly. And for the umpteenth time, the fact that someone is not against the incumbent Board; doesn't mean that one supports them; they have yet to earn my trust.
-
Highly likely I would think; but the question would be who is more at fault, the Directors for not drawing attention to the matter or the Auditors for not scrutinisng the contracts closely enough. I would guess the former but it puts the auditors in a difficult position either way especially if the stockmarket chose to investigate. However, I would think it was an agreed statement all round. They might try to blame Stockbridge himself for not ensuring it was in the notes.