BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
Certainly not banking on it, it will be tough but that and putting the Club on a sound financial footing are surely our top objectives and to some extent they go hand in hand.
-
His contract expires at the end of next season but yes I expect fans to queueing up to buy ST's as the only means to guarantee a ticket to see the first Rangers v Celtic games for 4 years.
-
That's a very good point. The Board are referring to the REPORTS not the UoF statement.
-
I don't remember the context of that statement but it referred to 2010 and it was correct. I was involved in discussions with a Trust Company who were representing Andrew Ellis, I introduced the lawyers who were acting for Jim McColl to the RST and I had a number of meetings and discussions with them on behalf of the RST. I'm really not sure the point you are trying to make but I am not involved in any such discussions with anyone at the moment.
-
I wouldn't disagree with much of that analysis but as I said, it is clear that the Board have indeed considered and rejected a legally binding undertaking however the matter arose in the meeting. I think it's pretty clear that the Board were committed to responding and they have done so. I would have thought that it would have been better for both sides to agree a statement after the meeting, wouldn't you AGREE?
-
And good morning to you too. I think some of my old teachers might take issue with your assumption but there are many fans who agree with my point of view, admittedly not many on this forum. So you keep saying. You have obviously lost all sense of proportion.
-
Absolutely any supporter is entitled to make that decision. But both Mr King and his UoF/SoS acolytes have asked supporters not to buy ST's; I think most people would view that as withholding money from the Club.
-
It's not a simple question at all but Mr Wallace' Report makes it clear that a lot of money has been misspent, onerous contracts entered into etc etc plus the ridiculous bonus culture has obvioulsy wasted a lot of money. The REAL issue for me now is to what extent the current Board are responsible for that and to to what degree (if at all) you trust them to improve the Club's fortunes or perhaps whether you are willing to give them that opportunity.
-
Happy to bow to your knowledge but my office suite is in a Grade b listed building and it took a reference to a Reporter to get a grille on a window.
-
With the first old firm games in 4 years, are you kidding me.
-
They must be pretty confident or they wouldn't have issued that statement; of course it doesn't rule out Murray Park being used and it doesn't have a listed building facade on it. However, the rights issue should be good for about £8m - £10m, a new share issue possibly, then there are the game to game ticket sales; it certainly won't be easy, we'll just have to budget accordingly, some difficult decisions may have to be made and expenditure postponed till we are back in the SPL.
-
Not sure where that comes from FS? I can confirm that I'm not looking for a sugar daddy for ANY purpose. Now a big sugar mama, perhaps...........
-
I know you and I can agree to disagree BD but you would have to concede that I wasn't alone in this certainly both Frankie and Hildy thought it was a fair point #117, #121, #123.
-
I'm sure you are right about that in relation to security because that was stated previously. Without being a fly on the wall it is difficult to know obviously. Whilst I'm sure that the UoF statement was accurate it may not have been complete as I suggested and it may not have reported the discussions in chronolgical order. It is possible that the Board were trying to establish if something short of granting security over Ibrox and Murray Park to Ibrox 1972 Ltd would be acceptable to the UoF. It seems from the UoF statement that that may have been the case. Who knows who said what first. It may well have been the UoF who said something like well what CAN you offer then and Wallace may have responded well the Board MIGHT consider........ It could just be of course that they wanted to be seen to be listening and there may have been some who were prepared to compromise (as has been suggested elsewhere). In any event they have made their position quite clear now so Mr King may as well dissolve Ibrox 1972 Ltd.
-
I always try to be sure of my facts BD The issue of Messrs Graham and Houston's standing certainly was a serious issue but since it would now appear to be moot we needn't waste any more time debating it.
-
Picking it up from Marks on Monday.
-
I think that what might be missing from the media reports is something along the lines of The UoF presented the conditions set out by Ibrox 1972 Ltd for the payment of pledged ST money to the Club in response to which "A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance,". That said, it is clear that the Board have duly “considered” and rejected the proposal to offer “legally binding undertakings…… in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park.” I think it is perfectly understandable that the Board would view those who have renewed as “loyal”; but I would agree that the inference that those who have not renewed are not loyal is unfortunate to say the least; if for no other reason than it seems that a large majority of them plan to go game to game on a selective basis and whilst that might not be viewed as wholehearted support, it is certainly not disloyal. I have mentioned before several times that the Board just don't get the fans psyche. That said it must surely be absolutely clear now to all who have or had intended pledging their ST money to Ibrox 1972 Ltd (yes, even GS ) that that is a futile gesture.
-
The St Johnstone defence were all heros.
-
Rangers play in the FA Cup Final - Arteta, McGregor & Aluko.
-
Great save by McGregor to keep Hull in it.
-
I would respectfully suggest that your second and third sentences appear to contradict the first. The Union of Fans is an umbrella organisation which comprises the main 3 supporters' groups (The Rangers Supporters Assembly, The Rangers Supporters Association and the Rangers Supporters Trust) as well as a number of other supporter groups (The Blue Order, The Union Bears, Sons of Struth) https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/about/#sthash.iSoN1RZl.dpuf Therefore I would accept that The UoF is a collection of organisations some of whom are democratic . - They do, see above. - I'm sure that's correct. I'm not sure how delegates are apointed/selected or elected to the Assembly; I tried to find out when I was Secretary of the RST but there didn't appear to be any formal arrangements. However, since it appears to be more or less redundant, I wouldn't argue about it. I also assume that delegates to the RSA elect their officials. I've had a quick look on the respective web sites but can't find out how The Blue Order and The Union Bears are organised.
-
Please see #182.
-
Such as what I had for breakfast for example? I'll tell you what's relevant to the point you were trying to make, Zappa. I was duly elected (and in one case co-opted) to all the positions I held under constitutions based on the Co-op model rules approved by the members of the organisations concerned. So far as I am aware neither the UoF nor the SoS has a constitution and neither Mr Graham nor Mr Houston have been elected by anyone to do anything. No doubt you'll correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. Meantime, I'll bid you good day, I have grass to cut and a car to wash.
-
I agree with your last point; but we'll see how far this "entertaining" goes because the opposite will also be true I'd suspect.
-
I thought that's what you meant, GS. The point I was trying to make is that according to the web site at least, the UoF and Ibrox 1972 Ltd appear to be synonymous and I don't know how many you are claiming have signed up to deposit or pledge their 2014 – 2015 season ticket money but I doubt it's 1,000 never mind 7,000. Actions speak louder than nil cost sign ups don't you agree? I would agree with you of course that a collective doesn't HAVE to have a constitution but in order to have some rights it certainly would be helpful to have a constitution to define its name, aims & objectives, and operational guidelines. This is particulalry important when it comes to electing leaders, which was my point in relation to Messrs Houston and Graham.
