BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
I think he's a trifle pre-occupied at present.
-
I am sorry but the first part of your comment is wrong, you do get the whole asset pledged as security; that's why it's not commensurate with the debt. You are right of course that you only get your debt satisfied but absent any other means of repayment, the entire asset would have to be sold; you can't sell Ibrox brick by brick. Even if you only owe a fraction of your original mortgage if you stop making the payments "your home is at risk".
-
I accept that ST money is "deferred income" for future delivery of goods or services that creates a liability on the balance sheet but I still do not think it is the same as a loan; it is a debt. I seem to recall that in the not too distant past much was made of the fact that a debt was not a loan! Would you not agree however, that the security requested is out of all proportion to the amount of that debt or loan? No question either that the principal issue is cashflow regardless of ST deadlines, reviews etc.
-
I accept most of what you say in he first three paragraphs, Calscot; but I beg to differ on the last and I am certainly not trying to confuse the issue by saying that ST money is not a loan.
-
Utterly terrible, what's his son got to do with it?
-
It's obvious that his latest statement is only an attempt to deflect attention away from his comment that "I prefer(red) not to put money into Rangers if it could be found from other sources." Whilst this may well have been said in private, the fact that he has now confirmed that it is true, is quite damning IMHO. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
-
I fail to see how anyone looking at his two most recent statements could draw any other conclusion.
-
Ally gaining ground then, up to 15%; anyone know a good PR man for him For the avoidance of doubt, I voted Ally OUT; precisely because if we DO win the Championship then he's a shoe in for the SPFLP and that would be disaster.
-
Since it is "common cause" that lack of season ticket revenue will render the club not a going concern; and since Mr King is asking the fans to withhold ST money; the truth of what you say is self evident. The big question is WHY. I would suggest that this is a case of 2+2 very definitely equalling 4.
-
Quite so and nice to see you back D'Art; doubtless the importance of the issue that has merited your return will not be lost on folks around here.
-
Mr King, do you agree that: Fans do not normally rely on a business review when considering whether or not to buy a season ticket for the following season; Fans normally buy a season ticket on the basis of their loyalty to the Club; A season ticket is not an investment it is a payment for entry to Ibrox Stadium to watch Rangers play 18 times next season; Season ticket money cannot be "advanced"; it is either paid or it's not paid in full or subject to any instalment scheme established by the Club. and can you confirm that: You still prefer "not to put money into Rangers if it can be found from other sources."
-
Ally up to 3 votes now (9%); a late run perhaps?
-
It's clear from some of the more strident comments on here however, that you are one of the few people who understands that.
-
Roby McRory, now that's a name legends are made of, come on McRory!
-
No fence sitters on this surely, we've had plenty of time to make up our minds, but fair enough
-
On Reflection I thought McCoist Did Well Yesterday
BrahimHemdani replied to amms's topic in Rangers Chat
Very sound ideas dB. -
On Reflection I thought McCoist Did Well Yesterday
BrahimHemdani replied to amms's topic in Rangers Chat
Coaches will tell you that that is because in modern football you cannot afford to have any players not contributing, a second striker just to stand up the park is not contributing enough to the team. But lone strikers need to be almost superhuman and need good subs for when they run out of gas. -
Rangers boost coffers by signing shirt deal with online casino 32Red
BrahimHemdani replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Bit surprised they've rolled this out ahead of the review but I have been suggesting that a new sponsor might be part of the plan. Neither alcohol nor betting have great credentials but both appeal to fans, so needs must I guess. -
On Reflection I thought McCoist Did Well Yesterday
BrahimHemdani replied to amms's topic in Rangers Chat
Yesterday showed that we can match the frenetic pace of the SPL but can't channel it properly. If we had played at that tempo v Raith Rovers we would have swept them aside. That's been our biggest failing IMHO these past two seasons - dropping down to the level of the opposition. DU looked like scoring every time they went up the park in the first half but we missed two cast iron chances, can't do that in a semi v an SPL team. We utterly dominated the second half but never really looked dangerous. We need the quality of McLeod, Templeton and McKay and a decent coach -
Not looking good for Super Ally in this poll anyway; summer will soon be here, time for more of this perhaps
-
A tad harsh on some of them perhaps? Simonsen has been a top class goalie and proved at Forfar that he can still do it. He made a mistake yesterday, it happens. Foster makes them all the time, one of his cost us goal as well. Smith - one free kick a FB does not make. Peralta had a great game yesterday; he plays RB for his country but could do a job for us in CMF. Law, Daly, Shiels - agreed not good enough. Jig - agreed a good servant but well paid for his efforts and past it. Mohsni, a hot headed accident waiting to happen. Aird has the potential but needs some decent coaching and a rest from the first team. Black is the enigma. Has the ability to control a game and has controlled his emotions under great provocation all season; but yesterday showed that against a faster, fitter team than he has been playing against this season he needs to step up his game and needs a better player than Law to help. McLeod might be that player. Templeton has been our biggest miss the last two weeks; the one genuine quality attacker we have, but need wrapped in cotton wool. Oh and Barry McKay to play up front with Clark perhaps; but he (McKay) may have burned his bridges unless we get a new manager.
-
No I am not.
-
It did not necessarily have to follow an SD model, although that was natural given the SD involvement. There is no doubt in my mind that RF has the potential to bring in Rangers fans around the world. Given the 1,000 members in a few weeks it could easily reach 5,000 + say 800 life members and that would be enough to buy 5% of the Club as things stand right now (although they would rightly keep back at least half of any contributions for the rights issue). The issues last weekend were a diversion and it does seem to have lost some of its initial momentum but I am sure that that can be rekindled.
-
You can do this and if the shares given over are valued at least £500 you will be given Life Membership (Club 1872) but it is OMOV. If you are a HNWI you can get in on different terms but otherwise it is OMOV. As rbr says, they won't consider that now, given that 1,000 or more have joined on that basis. The ethos is that a person who can afford a large contribution shouldn't have more influence than a person who can only afford £5 per month. RA and SDS were very much wedded to this CIC/CLG model from the outset and wouldn't consider anything else. I was the only person at the initial meetings with the knowledge to challenge that but my comments were brushed aside. I was advised by two of my former colleagues in SDUK who I consider to be the leading UK experts in this field that this wouldn't work or at least not work as well as other models. The upside of a CIC is that you get the asset lock and the ability to appeal for intervention from the CIC regulator if you suspect any funny business. Much of what happens in clubs, Mr Whyte notwithstanding, is legal, but morally dubious. A CIC, by having community objects over and above any requirements as a company, is therefore imbued with a greater moral purpose which means sharp practice might be better challenged. The big downside of a CIC vis a vis a Community Benefit Society (both of course are OMOV) is that the CBS can raise capital much, much more cheaply, as it doesn't need to seek FCA approval to any capital raising exercise; a CIC looking to raise big money would have to be a CIC plc, and there's not actually been one of those so on top of the costs of getting FCA approval and capitalising the business initially, you've got to pay for drafting a set of articles and getting them cleared with the regulator. They are using model rules to overcome that I understand. The way it had been done before (e.g. Portsmouth) was to have a CBS raising the capital from fans/the public, being co-owner of the club ownership vehicle with HNWIs, with two classes of share, with voting shares held by the CBS and preference shares held by the HNWIs. That way, the HNWIs get a return, the fans get control and everyone is happy and legal.) As I understand it, RangersFirst is combining these aspects; which may be simpler at the outset but more difficult in the long run. However, it is more difficult for a CIC/CLG to raise significant capital and that goes back to your OMOV point.
-
I am a member and have volunteered to assist in any way I can; but this offer has not been taken up.