BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
Who is this person then, name names.
-
I don't know anything about this Merlin and I don't agree with his Bolshevist analogy but I am in no doubt that the UoF/SoS have been conned by DK into a propoganda war against the Board for Mr King's own ends. The final point he makes is the most important for me. Delaying/withholding/ boycotting ST's and club merchandise (and I'm glad to say that the shop was full as usual on Saturday) is not an attack on the Board it is in attack on the Club itself; and buying your ST now is not supporting the Board, it is supporting the Club we all hold so dear. I know this is not a popular view at the moment and I fully expect to get shot down in flames once again; but I view the Club is greater than any director, manager, player or fan's representative especially those who have not been elected to such positions. That is why I will be renewing without any hesitation.
-
The First Annual Gersnet Dinner (The Bears Picnic)
BrahimHemdani replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
Not sure if that's my best profile Bluebear but great pictures of the others and the group especially young Miko on his own and with Dave Smith. I'm sure they'll be much appreciated by all concerned. You're definitely hired for the next one. -
The CEO is the Secretary and this is all that is aid in the SFA Articles: 69. Secretary Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Secretary shall be appointed by the Board for such time, at such remuneration and upon such conditions as it may think fit, and any Secretary so appointed may be removed by it. The Board may from time to time by resolution appoint an assistant or deputy Secretary, and any person so appointed may act in place of the Secretary if there be no Secretary or no Secretary capable of acting. The Secretary shall ordinarily also serve in the capacity of Chief Executive but, at the entire discretion of the Board, different persons may be appointed to office as the Secretary and the Chief Executive, respectively. All the power rests in the Board: 62. Powers of the Board 62.1 The management of the business and the control of the Scottish FA shall be vested in the Board, which shall be entitled to exercise all such powers and carry out all such objects of the Scottish FA as are not by these Articles or by statute expressly directed or required to be exercised or done by the Scottish FA in general meeting subject, nevertheless, to any regulations from time to time made by the Scottish FA in general meeting, provided that no regulation shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if such regulation had not been made. 62.2 Without prejudice to the general powers conferred by Article 62.1 and of the other powers conferred by these Articles, it is hereby expressly declared that the Board shall have the following powers:- (a) it may make, alter and revoke all such rules, bye-laws and regulations relative to the use of the property of the Scottish FA and to the conduct or holding of meetings, or for such other purpose as it may deem fit and proper, provided that no rule, bye-law, or regulation shall be made under the foregoing which would amount to such an addition to or alteration of these Articles as could only by law be made by a resolution of the members; (b) it may draw, make, accept, endorse, discount, execute and issue, respectively, promissory notes, bills, cheques or other negotiable instruments, provided that every promissory note, bill, cheque or other negotiable instrument drawn, made, accepted, endorsed, discounted, executed or issued shall be signed by the President, the First Vice-President, the Second Vice-President The list is too long to publish here. Obviously they delegate certain of these powers and the day to day running of the organisation to the CEO but there is no doubt who has the power and it is not the CEO.
-
Yes of course as CEO, he has day to day authority, BD, though a lot less authority I would venture to suggest than in the days of WP Allan and Ernie Walker.. My point was about "any decisions against Rangers". I think he knows where his authority ends and the politics begins.
-
Your not the first person to say that, thanks for the compliment.
-
Without seeing any documents it is very hard to know; but I suspect that a combination of incompetence and greed are the main factors. I would doubt it has been misappropriation (in a criminal sense) but certainly wouldn't rule out conflicts of interest. That said I would stress I am not making any allegations; I have no evidence of any wrong doing. I think the issue for the current Board is do they spend more time and money on a forensic examination of the books and records to establish whether or not there has been any criminality by previous directors or just "move on" as Americans would say. I would have a great deal of sympathy with anyone who wanted to pursue the former course but you would have to weight the costs and potential benefits. I may be wrong but I would guess that such a report would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, I doubt it would be £10,000 or £20,000; the accountants on here would know better than me. I think the chances of recovering any money would be slim and might incur the further costs of legal action. As I said if anyone has evidence of criminality by past or present Board members then they should take it to the proper authorities who will decide whether or not to investigate and raise charges. So IF someone has been guilty of a criminal offence then they could face stiff penalties and that might give shareholders some satisfaction but doesn't really help the Club a great deal other than perhaps removing any such current directcor from the Board. Again I must stress that I have no knowledge of any criminal activity.
-
Shareholders would be best served by all directors and employees working in the best interests of the company.
-
If anyone has evidence that directors benefited from undeclared conflicts of interest then I am sure that the police would take an interest.
-
Directors are obliged by law to avoid benefitng from conflicts of interest and failure to declare such is a criminal offence. "An interest can be direct or indirect. A conflict of interest could occur, for example, where a director is a director of another company which is a competitor, a major supplier, or a customer of the first company. An example of an indirect conflict of interest could be where a director represents a major shareholder in the company whose interests conflict with those of the company."
-
Bluedell;483181 Not only that but the Chair will most likely issue a public statement of support.
-
I've already responded about SA and am waiting to hear if you have evidence or read any reports that Justice Brian Smallwood is corrupt. As far as the SFA is concerned, I have known the President Campbell Ogilvie for many years and regard him as honest and trustworthy. He is in an elected position that certainly does not make him infallible in my eyes but equally he is not in a position to make many, if any, decisions on his own. The Boards of the SFA are elected and I have criticised the fact that Celtic FC have a man on both the full SFA Board and the Professional Game Board; but that is something for the other Clubs to aswer. I came to know Stewart Regan quite well in 2011-12 and whilst I think he struggled at first he can be credited with completely revising the SFA Rule Book and changing the outdated committee system against the wishes of many of the so called "blazers" who thereby lost their sinecures and trips abroad etc. He was also the driving force behind the play offs and the pyramid structure, again against the wishes of many of the member clubs. I think he would acknowledge his mistakes - one of which certainly was in not pursuing Whyte's lawyers nearly hard enough for answers on "fit and proper". No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that he personally made any decisions against Rangers, they would have been made by his employers the Clubs. He was just their mouthpiece. Far from kowtowing I have had many robust arguments with Messrs Regan and Doncaster and I am sure they would tell you for example that I gave them both a very hard time over not promoting "absolute liability" against the club's "reasonably practicable" defence for fan misbehaviour and I argued this against the football authorities and police in front of Ministers despite the "advice" of civil servants . I also spent many a meeting arguing for a 16 team league and more even distribution of the SPL's funds. I also argued with Ministers and others on the JAG/JRG against the "man on the no 9 Clapham omnibus" definition of a "reasonable person" and many other aspects of the OBA. It may comfort you a little to know that Mr Doncaster described the circumstances of our relationship as "difficult and testing ". BTW I don't care for snobbery either.
-
He commented that "Their insistence on being so deliberately confrontational with our current board, as well as their sometimes puerile rhetoric, may go down well with those already in their camp but it doesn’t necessarily resonate with all the support. As I’ve written previously, when the man you are openly supporting suggests some are “looking for a fight” it’s surely worthy of re-assessing how you are coming across to people." That seems quite balanced to me and he also reported that a fan was threatened for not singing "sack the board"; given D' Art's background I very much doubt if he would have reported that if it had not reached him from a very good source. How would he balance such a report - by saying that many fans who did not sing "sack the board" were not threatened?
-
If he became aware of that at some point after the AGM as he said in his interview, it would hardly be in the best interests of the Club for him to issue a press release about it at the same time as trying to negotiate additional facilities.
-
Do you believe the explanation he gave in the the interview?
-
I notice you didn't answer dB's question.
-
I am sure you are correct about most fans but I don't think it will come to that. Who are the "someone else's" that you would have replace the current Board? I think that they have made errors, of course they have; but IMHO they are better than any of the Boards we have had in the past 3 years at least and are doing their best to get us out of trouble.
-
I certainly didn't mean to patronise you and I am sorry you find me so irritating. I am sure you know far more about the SARS case and SA justice than me. However, just because someone is a Rangers fan does not place them on some pedestal above criticism IMHO. You asked why “Why would you believe mischief making fabrication before an SA judge?” My answer is that according to said judge “He (Mr King) deliberately misrepresented the facts of the case to his legal representatives.” “As his evidence progressed, it became clear that he has no respect for the truth and does not hesitate to lie, or at least misrepresent the facts, if he thinks it will be to his advantage.” It is easy for you to generalise about the SA justice system and I can’t comment because I haven’t studied it; but if you have evidence that this particular judge was or is corrupt then of course that would influence my opinion. Do you know if the judgement in that case was appealed and if so was anything made of the judge’s comments?
-
I think that's somewhat less than generous, D'Art presents his arguments in a fair and balanced way IMHO.
-
Just watched his all-star team defend 4-5-1 and oftentimes 6-3-1 against an equally talented Liverpool and it is described as highly organised, wonderful tactics, great team work etc and they score off a slip and an absolute breakaway when Liverpool were going all out for an equaliser; not saying they weren't exceptionally well organised and moved around as if tied to each other; BUT when we played 5-4-1 against much better teams than us e.g. Man Utd and Barcelona it was described as anti-football?
-
Perhaps but Mr Houston IS SoS is he not (or + one other) and also one of the leaders of the UoF along with Messrs Graham and Dinnie (at least they have all beeen pictured together).
-
As I said on another thread there must have been ongoing discussions between the Board and 1st Data; so assuming the documents referred to are genuine, they do not necessarily contradict Wallace's version of events. In the same way that he has now given a perfectly reasonable explanation of why he said at the AGM that we didn't need any further loans. He may be economical with the truth sometimes and frankly you wouldn't expect the CEO to give out every detail of every negotiation; but he does not give me the impression that he is a lier.
-
Are you being serious? Do you really want me to quote everything the learned judge said about Mr King AGAIN?
-
Hildy;483056 I do believe that that is correct as things stand, though you can go down to a fairly nominal £5/month. However it has been mooted that in the future this could be further reduced or abolished once a critical mass has been obtained. Of course you need to keep paying RST your £10/yr or life membership; so ultimately again not much difference. I am certain that most reasonable people accept that one group would be far stronger than the sum of the current different schemes.
-
I think your money's pretty safe.