Jump to content

 

 

BrahimHemdani

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,099

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BrahimHemdani

  1. BrahimHemdani
    Yes it should.
  2. BrahimHemdani
    Artemis do invest on behalf of other institutions e.g. pension funds etc, but unlikely they would do so on behalf of individuals, they are too big to do that. It is more likely that they bought the shares and have spread them across some of their retail or institutional funds; it wouldn't be that difficult to find that out but I don't think it's all that important. Doesn't seem to be any other obvious explanation though and despite the fact that they don't need to prove any more than Artemis' 5%, it might be why they have been reticent about their own holdings (if any).
  3. BrahimHemdani
    I suppose it does, I'd rather be called disagreeable than a "fanny" any day; but have certainly been called much worse on some sites
  4. BrahimHemdani
    Fair shout, I agree with you but whatever the reason, Ally did target RB as one of his priorities.
  5. BrahimHemdani
    I would find it extremely odd if they signed the requisition knowing that they didn't have any shares; that would seem like a fraud to me. Isn't it more likely that they do own shares but not in their own names.
  6. BrahimHemdani
    Bluedell I would side with Frankie on this, sook sook. I had no idea what a "fud" was until I looked it up just now: I don't think there is any need for that either, I am sure that the vast majority of people on this site are more than articulate enough to make telling points without resorting to that kind of language.
  7. BrahimHemdani
    Total waste of money. Gallagher can go on loan or take week about with the other Kelly as back up.
  8. BrahimHemdani
    Would keep Foster, as he's actually the only genuine RB we have, actually he played decently well at LB too in the past, another reason to let Smith go, or not have signed him at all.
  9. BrahimHemdani
    Tough at the top BD!
  10. BrahimHemdani
    Poor result even for a friendly. So has Simonsen signed then, nothing on the Club site?
  11. BrahimHemdani
    Because if they all stick together, none of them could then be voted off presumably. But what climb down this would be for McCollCo.
  12. BrahimHemdani
    Possible but unlikely in my opinion. More like they are held in a Monaco company and he would find that embarrassing.
  13. BrahimHemdani
    Yes and with only one CL spot for the foreseeable future, winning the SPFLP will become more valuable than ever.
  14. BrahimHemdani
    Precisely, that's what I said in response to the sarcastic comment in the Notice
  15. BrahimHemdani
    I will never forget the sight of Ronald de Boer pointing to where he was going to send the ball for Lovenkrnads and looking on in dismay as the pass went exactly where he had pointed but Lovenkrands didn't. That said I will also never forget THAT goal at Ibrox and again in Villarreal as he gave us the best chance ever of reaching the CL Quarter Finals (and Boyd missed it from inches).
  16. BrahimHemdani
    I don't believe the implication of this comment for one moment, namely that individual requests were made. Almost certainly the request would have gone to the lawyers acting for McCollCo and they took a collective decision only to provide proof of the minimum necessary shareholding to convene the meeting namely 5%. This begs the question, why would McCollCo not provide proof of the other holdings? Could it be that this is because (a) they are mostly held in nominee accounts and (b) they are very small, as has been suggested; and that goes to their credibility as investors. Given that we know that McColl himself is not really a significant investor, they might not want the other names to be tarred with the same brush.
  17. BrahimHemdani
    One can only assume that the then existing Directors were satisfied that the requisition was in order and signed by someone with authority to act for BPH.
  18. BrahimHemdani
    That's exactly the point, it seems some or all of the names who signed were not on the register, which may or may not be for the reason given by Frankie. Extremely strange that the Scotsman do not appear to know who Artemis is, given that they are a well known investment company with £15.6Bn under management, which puts them just outside the top 20 of UK investment companies, although they are regarded as something of a "boutique" house.
  19. BrahimHemdani
    They can't call in a long term loan but they could call in or cancel the overdraft facility.
  20. BrahimHemdani
    Very interesting article indeed, so they have £2m or so a year going out in debt servicing and repayments; probably manageable with CL money but could be a bit of a millstone before 2019.
  21. BrahimHemdani
    My point exactly. SDM used to like to say that he budgeted to go out of every cup in the first round, but we know now that wasn't true, at least not for Europe.
  22. BrahimHemdani
    Leaving aside who is or isn't a sugar daddy, there is a serious debate to be had here. It's a poor article in my view and Mr Grant would have done well to have read the earlier debate on here. Last season: The 32 clubs featuring in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League group stage can anticipate a minimum €8.6m – and the team that goes on to win the trophy next spring could collect €37.4m, not counting the market pool share. Each of the 32 sides involved in the group stage will collect a base fee of €8.6m. Performance bonuses will also see €1m paid for a win and €500,000 for a draw in the group phase. The teams competing in the round of 16 can also expect to pick up €3.5m each, the quarter-finalists €3.9m and the semi-finalists €4.9m. The UEFA Champions League winners will receive €10.5m and the runners-up €6.5m. On that basis Celtic would have picked up €15.6m in the group stage plus whatever for the qualifying games, say another €0.4m to around €16.0m or about £14.0m. So it's clear they didn't get £20m from UEFA but that might have been the total if you take in gate receipts and TV money. However, this misses the point that Celtic are in debt and have a wage bill commensurate with playing at that level, averaging £1m per player; we don't have European money but we don't have any debt either and we are only paying around 20% -25% of the wages. I am given to understand that a few of last year's signings, Wallace and McCulloch apart, the average wage at Ibrox now is around £4,000 per week. That still allows us to bring in players like Bell, Daly and Law, on double or more what they were earning before and guys like Peralta and Mohsni also seem to find it quite acceptable. The big problem up to now for Ally trying to sign players has not been the wages; it is playing in the third or fourth tier. This situation can only improve. Next year we will be in the "Championship" and even by connotation with England it sounds a lot better; but what is more important is that it is only one season away from the "Premiership". Then it will be a much easier sell, when Ally can say Come here and help us get back to the top flight in Scottish Football and in two years you could be playing in Europe. I think you can see where I'm going with this. That first season back in Europe (2016/17) will be tough, realistically most likely starting in Q1 or Q2 at best in the Europa League but IT IS EUROPE and that willl be an attraction. In two year's time we should be back in the SPFLP when the story becomes much more interesting: Join is for our first season back in the top flight, play against Celtic and other known teams and help us get into Europe, possibly the CL but at least the EL. I don't want a sugar daddy running our Club, I want prudent but adventurous management that will see us gradually build a squad capable of taking us back where we belong at the same time as bringing through the best of our young talent like Gallagher, McLoed, Crawford McAusland and Mackay; AND STAYING DEBT FREE. That way when we get back to the top, we will be able to stay there and Celtic won't be in a league of their own.
  23. BrahimHemdani
    Andy Steel Thank you for your consideration and for modifying your language somewhat.
  24. BrahimHemdani
    Thought maybe they'd had a tiff and Moyes threw a boot at him instead of :box:
  25. BrahimHemdani
    Since McCollCo have provided the necessary proof then they hold all the aces and could easily say that the expense of the EGM is justified by the delays of the current Board, failure to accept the changes etc. So the fact that they have not forced the issue, says quite a lot IMHO.
×
×
  • 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.