Jump to content

 

 

BrahimHemdani

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BrahimHemdani

  1. BrahimHemdani
    I am a paid up member and I'll assume that you did not mean your comment the way it comes across. But your answer proves my point. Sending a promotional email to existing members or even those who have registered an interest if that is the case, about RangersFirst Members Give away including a statement We are getting very close to our next milestone of 1000 members; does not constitute putting the information into the public domain. Putting the information into the public domain means putting it up on the web site or otherwise by making a public announcement. It would appear that you obtained the information ahead of anyone else to include in the promotional leaflet for Monday. This gives the impression that there is some inner cadre of people who are privy to information that others are not; and this is wrong.
  2. BrahimHemdani
    I asked these questions exactly two weeks ago and am disappointed to report that no answers have been forthcoming: Numbers signed up to web site Numbers signed up to pay monthly Total amount of monthly contributions Number of Life Memberships taken out for cash Number of shares pledged for LM or directly. This information should be made public on a weekly basis in the initial stages and perhaps monthly thereafter. I am surprised that Greg appears to have had access to the information about total sign ups when this is not in the public domain and I agree that there should be a ticker on the web site.
  3. BrahimHemdani
    I can't argue that Whittaker's was a better goal but for me when Jean Claude Darcheville scored totally back across the goalkeeper, I just KNEW that there was no way they were going to score 2 against us in the last 30 mins having not scored in the two games up to that point. Whittaker's solo effort was the icing on the cake. I can't explain it but somehow winning that night and getting to the semi-final was bigger than Florence. Perhaps because reaching the semi-final meant we had a realistic chance of the final and that was something we really hadn't dreamt about up until that point.
  4. BrahimHemdani
    I think I'm right in saying that Stirling University are doing the analysis after the period ended 31 March 2014. Of course we would have to accept that the results are skewed somewhat because there are only two old firm games at the beginning (season 2011/12) and none in football seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14.
  5. BrahimHemdani
    The analysis in the report is very limited and in partiular statements like "A substantial proportion (42.2%) of the total charges occurred in Glasgow (113 charges). This is likely to reflect the fact that Glasgow is home to the three largest football stadiums in Scotland." must be open to challenge. Could it not be that it reflects the fact that Rangers and Celtic have the most supporters? It is interesting to note that the match with the most arrests was Hamilton v Falkirk and that Hibernian were invloved in two of the other four, one at home and one away. It would be intersting to see the figures compared with number of fans either per match or per average attendance and some attempt made to compare "home" behaviour with "away" behaviour. If Hibernian fans accounted for 10.4% of the offences then it might be the case that pro rate the number of fans they are actually the worst offenders.
  6. BrahimHemdani
    I'd say that your last comment was a considerable understatement. I agree that with the exception of Bremen our home games were a bit of a trial; but I was privileged to see some unforgettable away performances (again with the possible exception of the backs to the wall job in Bremen) with Lisbon being the highlight for me.
  7. BrahimHemdani
    Some very intersting stuff in the report e.g. 3 out of the 4 matches with the most offences did not involve Celtic or Rangers.
  8. BrahimHemdani
    Education is indeed the key but in terms of legislation this would appear to mean going back to a reliance on Breach of the Peace, which was equally ineffective.
  9. BrahimHemdani
    So far neither Club has done anything more than their fans would and should have expected and as BD says both had embarassing LC exits. However, I would argue that if we win the SC (after qualifying for the semis only having to play one team from a higher divison and no SPL teams) against teams two leagues higher then that is a greater achievement than them getting to the group stages of the CL when seeded in all 3 QR's against teams from NIR, SWE & KAZ (which you could ARGUE is on the same scale as us reaching the SC Semis) and then bombing in the group stages. TBH however, Celtic even getting to the group stages of the CL is a bigger achievement than us getting to the SC semis; but us winning the SC would be massive. That said, better wait to see how we get on v Dundee Utd.
  10. BrahimHemdani
    Hard to see what he's making a fuss about. He says “We never said we’d take the initial allocation of 8000. We said sell the Broomloan Stand first then move on from there – we never said that’s all we wanted. They say “Notwithstanding the present allocation of 8012 – as requested by the club – Dundee United retain first option on the Govan West corner and a section of the Front and Rear, an additional 3051 seats.” What's the difference?
  11. BrahimHemdani
    I think we can agree that either fans in general through RF or season book holders en masse can get anything they want; the big question is will they? Do you think it would be easier to get 20,000 ST book holders to act en masse or 20,000 fans in general worldwide including ST holders to act together?
  12. BrahimHemdani
    Sounds like you are speaking from personal experience there; my mother always told me if you can't be good be careful.
  13. BrahimHemdani
    Pete seems to be correct http://www.lyricsdepot.com/otis-redding%25/sitting-on-the-dock-of-the-bay.html
  14. BrahimHemdani
    I said the SAf may well apply different tests. The criteria in the SFA tests are quite clear.
  15. BrahimHemdani
    How did we get from the Club Statement to Sitting in or on the Dock of the Bay?
  16. BrahimHemdani
    I included the various references to Mr King because his statement is the subject of the thread. I can only repeat that I do not question Mr King's motives. In answer to your references to (1) & (2) I do not think that the fans will have influenced the plan in any meaningful way. The bet as you suggest in your final sentence would be impossible to prove so I think it's best left as a friendly disgareement. That said I if I lose the bet as I put it, I will make the donation anyway.
  17. BrahimHemdani
    I'll correct myself a little if I may. I believe that a director of the Club Board comes under the same rule as a director of the plc because the rule refers to the member and its associates. Associates are defined: if the person referred to or any associate of that person is a body corporate, (1) any other body corporate associated with it either through the holding of shares in it or by reason of control by contract or other form of agreement; (2) any director or employee of that body corporate or other associated body corporate or any close relative of any such director or employee; and (3) where any person has an agreement or arrangement, whether legally binding or not, with any other person in relation to the exercise of his voting power in a club or in relation to the holding I don't know the exact relationship between Rangers International plc and Rangers Football Club but I would think it is caught by the above definition if not by the shareholding section. There is a person on the Board of Rangers Football Club who was convicted of VAT fraud in 1997. That is not a bar to him being regarded as fit and proper by the SFA because it is more than 10 years since the conviction. IMHO Mr King will not pass the SFA test for reasons I have stated often enough and in order to avoid getting a yellow card from admin I will not repeat them but you can read for yourself here if you wish: http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf See Rules 10.2 & 10.3 I am more than happy to take your word that "the South African Government and the South African Stock Exchange have no problem with deeming him fit and proper" but I don't see the relevance of any South African fit and proper test in relation to the SFA Rules.
  18. BrahimHemdani
    I don't see where I have said or suggested that Mr King would invest or sell out for personal gain. I do believe he will invest in a new share issue at what level I have no idea and that he will try to find a way to do so in conjunction with RST/BR and/or RF or some other vehicle. I agree that he has Rangers at heart. I am sorry if any of my previous posts have given you or any of his supporters any other impression. There are 4 elements in my final sentence: (1) There will be enough in the 120-day plan to satisfy all sides; (2) Mr King will claim a victory for fan power; (3) he will urge fans to invest in the new share issue; and (4) the ST trust scheme will be abandoned (at least by him). I am not a betting man and not sure if it's very moral to bet on points of view but I will happily bet for charity that I get at least 3 out 4 right; let's say £10 per element for Erskine Hospital?
  19. BrahimHemdani
    So I take it you agree on my other points? As to the power to remove the Board, I think we saw at the EGM where the true power lays - the institutions. But let's say that at the end of the 120-day period the Board produce a half way sensible plan that addresses the main concern of funding for a return to the top flight; there is a share issue to which fans subscribe; DK then says there is no point in a ST trust scheme because it would just starve the club of money at a time when it needs it most; are you saying that unpalatable as we all find some previous actions of the Board, you would still want to organise some kind of rebellion to throw them all out? As things stand at the minute the only fans who matter to the Board are the ones who are paying customers (hence the initial attraction of the ST scheme). The ones who are abroad or otherwise aren't able to go along don't count. That's one reason why I support RF, because it is an ideal opportunity for ALL Rangers fans to contribute to a meaningful fund of money that WILL be able to BUY influence in the Club through shares and in due course other means. Only 5,000 fans paying an average of £10 per month (and we're nearly at 1,000 already) plus 800 i.e. less than half the available life memberships would mean £1,000,000; once you get into 7 figures you become a meaningful force that doesn't starve the club of money in the way that an ST scheme would do.
  20. BrahimHemdani
    Not sure if that's correct because the person to whom I think you refer (assumimg that it is not Mr Whyte) is not a director of the plc. But in any event, it is more than 10 years since his conviction and he wasn't a director of the club when it suffered an insolvency event, which are the SFA tests. The SAf may well apply different tests.
  21. BrahimHemdani
    What other option did they have? In what way are they binding? I see no changes in the Board's position. Again, what option do they have; the UoF does not have the power to remove the Board.
  22. BrahimHemdani
    Considering your recent comments about me, there is a substantial level of agreement on this matter at least.
  23. BrahimHemdani
    I think it's realsitic not defeatist. As I have said several times I agree with the SoS group objectives but not their modus operandi; I don't agree with the UoF/DK season ticket proposal. That has nothing to do with having a low opinion of anyone; it's simply the case that I don't believe it's in the best interests of the Club. I think BD's post sums up most fan's views of what will happen if push comes to shove. My belief is that it will not come to that. There will be enough in the 120-day plan to satisfy all sides; Mr King will claim a victory for fan power; he will urge fans to invest in the new share issue; and the ST trust scheme will be abandoned.
  24. BrahimHemdani
    Please see #124. My point as regards Mr King was in connection with the "fit and proper" test.
  25. BrahimHemdani
    The hyperbole was intended to prove the point; but I agree enough is enough as far as Mr A Easdale is concerned.
×
×
  • 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.