Jump to content

 

 

BrahimHemdani

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BrahimHemdani

  1. BrahimHemdani
    Actually I think that'sa pretty damn good start. If each of those 2,400 (actually might be 2,300 because the first number was going to be 100 I think, hopefully not 1,000!) were to pay £10/month that would raise enough for 1.5% of the shares in the first year at current prices etc etc. Essentailly you need £1,000,000 at current prices for a 5% holding; that's a only 8,333 people at £10/month or twice that number if everyone only paid the minimum, which we've already seen isn't what's happening; not counting Life Memberships. 500/1,000 Life Memberships and 6,250/4,166 monthly donations at £10 would do it. None of these figures look impossible to me.
  2. BrahimHemdani
    It is certainly the aim to have at least two such figureheads. Greig and Smith would be ideal IMHO.
  3. BrahimHemdani
    The Minutes of the 4th Meeting have now been published on http://www.rangersfirst.org I doubt that anyone familiar with my style from here or eslewhere will have difficulty detecting the parts that were written by me and the parts that have been inserted from another note taker. For the avoidance of doubt the will@rangersfirst.org address is incorrect, the correct address for communication is admin@rangersfirst.org. In any event direct sign up is available on the web site.
  4. BrahimHemdani
    The two goalkeepers and Cribari will surely be released (although I suspect that Simonsen will get another year and Gallagher go out on loan again) and I think that Hutton has been very unfortunate with his long term injury and should get a year as well. Gaparotto should get a new deal (at leat two years). The real problem is all the defenders that are signed on till 2015; we may have to live with that as it is pointless paying them off.
  5. BrahimHemdani
    That was discussed at the last meeting and the answer given was that it was difficult but not impossible to achieve.
  6. BrahimHemdani
    One of the objectives of RF is to "sweep up" as much of that 12% as possible; hence the facility to pay for a Life Membership in whole or in part in shares. At current prices just over 1,600 shares would buy you a Life Membership.
  7. BrahimHemdani
    Buying a few hundred shares say on the open market doesn't really make a great deal of difference whether the money goes directly into the Club or not. I agree that "the vast majority of the Rangers Support are not seeking to make a return on your investment" but there is a difference between having a framed certificate hanging on the wall and being vain about it. Of course the situation is different now with the collective options available; so your strategy is entirely credible and commendable.
  8. BrahimHemdani
    Yes, I realise that thanks but my point was that it is not vain to want to buy shares now; and it is not an either/or (buy now or later) if you want to own shares in your own right; you can do both.
  9. BrahimHemdani
    Whilst it is obvious that a group of shareholders have more power than an individual; I cannot agree with your first statement. Like DT I was a shareholder in oldco for about 20 years, it gave me the power to attend the AGM and harass Mr Bain and the rest of the Board, which I did on a regular basis. If there is no new share issue (though I concede that that is unlikely) then buying existing shares in your own right is the only way to have a direct say. If there is then a new share issue then you can buy whatever number is required to maintain the value of your holding. Therefore as with RF, I would suggest that anyone who decides to buy shares now, only invests a half or a third even of what they can afford and holds the rest back until the picture becomes a bit clearer (most likely after the "120 days"). To suggest that it is vain to want to own shares in your own right ahead of a possible new issue does not advance your argument IMO. Those who wish to be part of a collective shareholding now have two routes to choose from. However, I do think that in terms of maintaining a percentage holding RF are better placed as a new scheme because it can chose when and how much to invest. That's just a fact it's not point scoring. If my calculations are correct, even if new shares are offered at 20p (increasingly unlikely as the share price continues to tick up) BR will have to find at least £110,000 to maintain their current 0.86% holding.
  10. BrahimHemdani
    And equally kind of you to defend my right to express my opinion.
  11. BrahimHemdani
    Apology Firstly I would like to apologise to anyone who was offended by the one sentence from my post at 9.30pm last night that has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread. I should have made a clear distinction between the comment that I heard and my own opinion. I regret the fact that I did not. However, I did make it clear, within two hours, following the initial reaction and repeated myself half an hour later. Therefore, I can only assume that Hildy has perpetuated the debate all day because of his clearly stated opposition to the RF scheme. Decisions For the avoidance of doubt, I do not, as he suggested, have any “inside track into what is going on at RangersFirst.” In fact I have complained that a lot of decisions have been taken behind the scenes, probably as a matter of expediency, and then presented to the meetings more or less as a fait accompli. Positions I have no position at Rangers First, “special” or otherwise; no one has, aside from Richard Atkinson as Secretary of the CIC pro tem; nor have I ever purported to represent Gersnet. Andy Steele represented Gersnet at the first meeting. I made that clear the moment I stepped into the room. Notes/Minutes Andy and I both posted reports of the first meeting on here. I did so of my own volition and was thanked for it as I have been for my subsequent reports. I also posted notes of the second meeting in the early hours of the following day, in a bid to keep people informed about a fast moving situation. Two days later, RA asked me to “send me the text file of the notes you put on the gersnet site please I would like to add to them”. I complied with that request. Subsequently these were published with large sections of verbatim notes (not taken by me) as the Notes/Minutes of the Meetings. I was then asked to take Minutes of the 3rd Meeting but with the caveat “someone else was doing notes that would be combined”. These were also duly published though with less verbatim content. I took notes at the 4th Meeting on Monday night again of my own volition and yesterday I was asked “If you also have notes from last night I am happy to use these as the basis for the meeting notes.” But once again it was made clear that “(two other people) were also taking notes”. I responded by submitting my notes last night with the following comment: As I remarked last week, this organisation (the working group, not the CIC) urgently needs a committee and executive officers. Then the Chair and Secretary would work together to produce an agenda (as per Co-op model rules!), the Secretary would write the Minutes, the Chair would amend if required, and the Minutes submitted for adoption at the next meeting. They would be published as adopted at that point. If such a procedure were to be implemented then notes of the salient points could be published online pro tem. I don’t think that there is anything more that I can usefully add.
  12. BrahimHemdani
    I had a similar concern about buying shares in advance of the likely new issue that will devalue them per se. However, the plan is only to invest half the money raised in the short term so as to be able to buy one for one and this maintain the percentage holding. Of course, whilst the shares appear to have passed the bottom they could easily go down in value again; but the risk of buying at this level has to be balanced against the influence that will be gained from a shareholding.
  13. BrahimHemdani
    The only way I can answer that is by saying that I was asked to review the Co-op model rules on CICCLG's and amongst the comments I made was that: IMHO and experience a possible Board of 15 is far too big and the 3 minimum is too few; I would prefer 5/6 to 12 at the very most. I would want more time to study the Powers to Appoint and Remove Directors and the question of Remuneration which many may not like but will be necessary if it is intended to appoint a solicitor as the first member. I have now been asked to look at another model. I do not know whether or not it is intended to remunerate the solicitor who has been appointed; I was not party to the appointment nor its terms nor have they been stated. RA has consistently stated that in his opinion the directors should not be paid. Again there has been no discussion in any of the open meetings about expenses; other than some throw away comments about those who might go forth to spread the word, would be doing so at their own expense; but these were not formal decisions. However, in my personal opinion directors should have the ability to recover legitimate expenses as is the case at SD (where there are clear rules as to what is and what is not recoverable). Whether directors then submit claims is another matter, some may well be in a better position than others in that respect and people should not be deterred from becoming a director because they cannot afford to be out of pocket.
  14. BrahimHemdani
    Actually it does the opposite; but I note your objection.
  15. BrahimHemdani
    I have to be honest (well I am always honest) and say that that was not the comment to which I was refering and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying it was not said. But the comment I heard came during a discussion in the second half of the meeting when there was a reference to shares being transferred into the CIC in lieu of the £500 Life Membership. At the time I took it as aserious suggestion but it may well have been a flippant or sarcastic comment and I repeat it was not discussed.
  16. BrahimHemdani
    It is a fact that I have experience of being in financial services and it's regulation, on the Board of SDUK and SDS as well as the RST and have offered my assistance on the admin and compliance side but equally there are many others who have expereince in other important areas such as IT which is all a mystery to me. If there are any heavy hitters (and certainly decisions are being made by some people and then presented to the group) then I am not one of them, JMHO. There are also people who have a much higher profile and whose opinion seems to carry more weight. But at the end of the day everyone is just a member of the working group and now has the opportunity to become a member of Rangers First.
  17. BrahimHemdani
    It's my personal opinion pure and simple based on a comment that was made last night, which as Zappa said may well have been a tongue-in-cheek quip.
  18. BrahimHemdani
    That didn't occur to me at the time but you may well be right.
  19. BrahimHemdani
    I was reporting a comment that was made in the room and I also reported that it was not discussed. I then made my own comment. So far as I am aware no one has been appointed to speak for RF, least of all me.
  20. BrahimHemdani
    That's not how I have it in my notes but I think we can agree to differ on that precise point because we are agreed that Rangers First was the unanimous choice for the name of the CIC. We also agree that there is something different about the RF scheme that I think wil capture the imagination of Rangers fans worldwide; particularly the vast majority who are not members of any organisation.
  21. BrahimHemdani
    The suggestion was made from behind where I was sitting and wasn't debated. There are issues with proxy voting; I don't know the technicalities. I don't think it's a ludicrous suggestion; there's strength in numbers.
  22. BrahimHemdani
    Regardless of who are the biggest offenders; they must have known they would get no change out of the SG at this time, so they curry favour amongst all supporters (not least their own) by appearing to be the fans' champions at no cost to themselves.
  23. BrahimHemdani
    Sorry to be pedantic, it's just the way I am; but there was never any suggestion that the CIC be named Rangers Coop. At the second meeting, the domain http://www.rangers.coop was proposed as it had been registered by SD. The name Rangersfirst.org was then offered by the gentleman who owned it and that was adopted. 16 people taking £500 life memberships on the night is an incredible start and shows the potential that exists.
  24. BrahimHemdani
    There were no votes taken on any issues last night when I was in the room and I did not go out for any reason whilst the meeting was in progress. That said I see no reason to distrust any of those involved. I also have little doubt that RF will very quickly overtake the BR in terms of monthly contributors (under 200?) and that whilst everyone is entitled to make their own choice or no choice the whole (BRF?) would be worth far more than the sum of the parts. In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good.
  25. BrahimHemdani
    It was the "paddling" I was referring to.
×
×
  • 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.