Jump to content

 

 

BrahimHemdani

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BrahimHemdani

  1. BrahimHemdani
    It is perfectly clear that it is indeed about fan ownership or perhaps better stated as fan involvement in the same way as thr RST/BR scheme is really about involvement not outright ownership. The second target is 25%+1 which is sufficient to block a special resolution. This is very important as was seen at the AGM when Resolution 10 was blocked. The point is not that RF is a share ownership scheme; it is wider than that. After a certain percentage of shares has been acquired and ACT gained it may not be necessary to purchase more shares; instead the money could be used in partnership with the club for things like upkeep of Murray Park etc. I am sure that is what Andy meant.
  2. BrahimHemdani
    And no one could ever accuse you of being that.
  3. BrahimHemdani
    A very reasonable question. Do they have the name and address of everyone who contributed?
  4. BrahimHemdani
    So this was a limited invitation to the Secretaries of various organisations and thus the committe was drawn from that limited group; which has been recognised on numerous occasions as only representing a small minority of fans. On the other hand from the explanations given on here it would appear that the NARSA executive represents all its member organisations. As has also been expressed by barca any executive is normally charged with dealing with that organisation's day to day business. Incidentally and going back to the subject at issue; the purpose of the monies is clear from this statement "The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund will allow supporters to make cash donations that will directly affect the Club now and will go a long way towards helping secure its future."
  5. BrahimHemdani
    Who was invited to attend the initial meeting and was there a public announcement about it?
  6. BrahimHemdani
    No but she is the Minister in charge.
  7. BrahimHemdani
    Write to Roseanna Cunningham.
  8. BrahimHemdani
    I see my comment about Dirk Diggler and Juancorneto was unceremoniously removed. Quite right admin, keep it clean. Meantime I have confirmed with the film crew and they will be getting some drinks in as a thank you for allowing the filming. They will skip filming TB who does not want to be filmed and rejected my rather tongue in cheek suggestion about a face mask "as feel it would not fit with the documentary.". This further emphasises their good intentions in my view.
  9. BrahimHemdani
    By the way, I regret to say that there was a great deal of F***** B*** and B******* and FTP being sung behind the goals at our end on Saturday; very disappointing that this is creeping back in.
  10. BrahimHemdani
    That's exactly what they do.
  11. BrahimHemdani
    I know from discussion on the JRG that this is a very real problem for the Police. If a group of say 6,12, 20 officers try to arrest a large number of folk in a crowd then a riot will ensue and the police will lose the battle. That's also why police and stewards can do nothing about people standing up when they should be sitting down. What they do is (a) arrest a conspicuous offender and (b) later use the cameras to try to identify and arrest the people concerned away from the match. It might not satisfy a lot of people but that really is as much as they can do unless they don riot gear or bring in the army as they do in some other countries.
  12. BrahimHemdani
    Because the Police simply don't have sufficient resources.
  13. BrahimHemdani
    The OBA has been ridiculed in many quarters and a lot of the criticism about the drafting has been etirely valid; but this is a good example of it being used successfully for the purpose for which it was intended. Hopefully the police and the procurator will attract some praise for their actions.
  14. BrahimHemdani
    Have Rangers problems been cured; does the possibility exist that they might need money for something in the not too distant future?
  15. BrahimHemdani
    Good morning, FS. For the last time; I did not do anything to John Bennett; he stated himself that he was never part of the Blue Knights "my name was released prematurely"; he came to Glasgow, saw the size of the task, realised that for the amount of his investment he would want to be a director, knew that that was inconsistent with his day job, decided not to be part of the Blue Knights; all before he spoke to me. Neither you nor I know if he ultimately invested any money. The vast majority of people acknowledged that I did what I had to do from a professional point of view. I made the mistake of being open and honest and releasing the letters; but at the end of the day, he made his own decision. Now will you give it a rest. Thank you for agreeing that the proposed ST scheme is ridiculous.
  16. BrahimHemdani
    Members of an organisation cannot vote away it's own stated objective; that implies a new organisation or in this case a new fund with a different objective. Well done NARSA.
  17. BrahimHemdani
    That might well be regarded as casting doubt on the "ability to pay creditors"; but it's not what is referred to by the Chairman or the Auditors.
  18. BrahimHemdani
    I can only assume that you are deliberately misinterpreting my comments. I didn't say that the Club is unable to trade as a going concern, what I said is that it seems to me that the Chairman was referring to those two gentlemen in particular and the organisations they represent as causing the present uncertainty. However, perhaps you can place a different interpretation on the phrase "external comment and ill-informed opinion ". I am certainly not an apologist for the current Board; but it is a fact that most of them were not in place whilst the IPO money etc was spent. It certainly isn't unaccounted, otherwise the accounts would be qualified. However, equally certainly it has not been explained in any detail and that has definitley led to distrust to say the least. The fact that I support and a member of RF has nothing whatsover to do with Rangers Interim Accounts.
  19. BrahimHemdani
    They cast doubt on our ability to trade profitably. What casts doubt on a company's ability to trade as a going concern are things like net liabilities, current net liabilities, borrowing facilities unlikely to be renewed or replaced, inability to pay creditors or to comply with the terms of loan agreements, the loss of a major market, key customer, supplier or management, or pending legal or regulatory proceedings that the entity may not satisfy. Clearly, for a football club the potential loss of a large number of season ticket holders would constitute loss of a major market and/or key customer.
  20. BrahimHemdani
    The so called ST Trust doesn't exist yet so far as I am aware. The Chairman blamed "external comment and ill-informed opinion continues to create uncertainty with regard to future income and cash flows". I would suggest to you that he was refering to the UoF and SoS, in particular Messrs Graham & Houston; and casting doubt on the Club's ability to trade as a going concern is exactly what they have done.
  21. BrahimHemdani
    Perhaps, just a tad!
  22. BrahimHemdani
    I think I'm right in saying that there has been a turnover of 10,000 or so ST holders in each of the last two seasons. Again, I say that if it is marketed properly & a new manager would be a big boost to sales as well, more ST's will be sold next season than this; if for no other reason than the quaility of the opposition will be much better. An apparently very intelligent sales guy I spoke to on the train yesterday said he thought we would sell out; not sure about that, but somewhere in the region of 36,000 - 40,000 is a distinct possibility
  23. BrahimHemdani
    Thank you for the compliment. I think that most people equate signing over assets as granting a standard security on them; but I am happy to accept your wording. However, if you think that one of the biggest accountancy and audit firms in the world would put their name to "propoganda" for the sake of what must be for them a very minor account then we are going to have to agree to disagree. If the Directors had not made the assumptions stated in the accounts, it is clear that the auditors would have forced "adjustments that would result if the Company was unable to continue as a going concern." The going concern principle is the assumption that a company will remain in business for the foreseeable future. If the Auditors take the view that the "material uncertainty" means that the company is not a going concern then it affects the value of the assets and hence the company's ability to trade; it may be trading insolvently i.e. it is trading without the ability to pay its ongoing debts, wages etc, in layman's terms it is bankrupt. The Club needs the season ticket money when it falls due because without it the Club will not be able to pay suppliers or wages and trade over the summer months and also because without it and indeed more of it, it places the future of the company as a going concern in jeopardy. This is not my opinion it is the Auditors opinion. I would respectfully suggest to you, that there is a glaring contradiction in what you are suggesting. If the plan now is to hand over the ST money "at the normal time" then there is nothing to grant security for; no loan, no debt, no nothing. I would also respectfully remind you that the ST money is not a loan it is payment for the "entertainment" (such as it is) which is offered by RFC. What makes you think that the club might not fulfil its fixtures? If you happen to have a season ticket for one of Mr Easdale's buses, would you ask or would you expect him to grant security over the bus garage in case the bus was late or didn't turn up at all (note for Mr Easdale's laywers, I am not for one minute suggesting that that might happen); no you wouldn't and nor would he. The idea is preposterous. It's up to you to decide if you want to take whatever risk you see in that contract; just as it is up to each and every season ticket holder or potential holder whether they deem that a reasonable risk or not. I don't think they did say that; they said they had no present intention, or words to that effect; no board could say that nor would any future board feel bound by such a ridiculous statement. The Board have to retain the assets unemcumbered, in case they do have to obtain debt finance at some point in the future. That is plain from the Chairman's statement. I have done my best to answer your points but it's been a long day, not made easier by our second half performance and the clocks going forward, so if you don't mind, I'll bid you good night or perhaps good morning.
  24. BrahimHemdani
    No, all my own work I can assure you; but perhaps something in the sea air at Arbroath today. I don't see this as a them and us situation; I see it as a Club situation. See also #8.
  25. BrahimHemdani
    Thank you for the compliment (and I accept that my views have rarely if ever been mainstream or at least not mainsteam as portrayed on web forums). I agree that there is a great deal wrong with our Club; but I do not think that the "ridiculous" (as you rightly desribe it) ST scheme is the right way to go about fixing it. I also agree that absent a major injection of cash from the existing investors (who will get first shout on a new share issue) or perhaps a MAJOR new sponsorship deal and who knows what else from THE PLAN, Mr King seems the most likely source of finance. Indeed in my opinion and that of others more experienced than me in these matters; his whole campaign is predicated on his desire to be allocated as much of the new share issue as he can afford or is willing to commit. Surely it would be better to get all the ST money AND new finance whatever the source. I'm not sure what's so terrible about that opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.