BrahimHemdani

I think this view is outdated. I believe that there is a recognition now amongst the SPL clubs that the money needs to be shared more evenly amongst the leagues and more equally within the leagues. The FansFirst Plan pushed both concepts very hard.

This is an anti-boycott thead and I for one support it. Follow follow.

That is a ludicrous comment, we weren't excluded from the SPL or put in SFL3 because of the EBT scheme but because we went into administration and then liquidation, failing to pay PAYE and NIC along the way. Equally reconstruction will happen precisely because Rangers not being in the SPL has destroyed the myth perpetuated by Doncaster that the TV companies required 4 old firm games a season. This opens the door for the fans' preferred option, 16 team leagues, playing each other twice a season. http://fansfirstscotland.com/2012/11/24/a-fansfirst-response-to-reconstruction/

See #22, I did not take part in a boycott of the rearranged 2009 match. A personal decision on a one off issue does not constitute a boycott.

I knew I was open to that retort but I don't believe it's the same thing. I paid to see the original match, I wasn't going to pay twice to see the same match. "A boycott is a group refusal to deal commercially with a certain organization. A boycott usually is a manifestation of a protest against the organization's policies." I didn't make or take part in a group decison not to pay Dundee Utd to see the rearranged match. It was a personal decsion and I wasn't protesting against a policy decision by Dundee Utd in the same way as people may have boycotted Starbucks recently because of their tax policy. That is quite different from not buying a cup of their coffee if you think it's too expensive or paying for a refill if you think that should be free.

The away club is entitled to 20% of the tickets for a Scottish Cup tie.

I'm against a boycott but I don't see how the SFA could withhold money on the basis suggested if there was a boycott: the share of gate money is on the basis of who is playing in the match, not how many or if any tickets are sold by either side.

Half the money would go to Rangers, it's self defeating to boycott this match.

I believe that boycotts are generally counter-productive. In this case, being a cup tie, the gate money will be shared equally, so a boycott deprives Rangers of money just as much as it deprives Dundee Utd. Most importantly it deprives the team of much needed support, which is particularly important in an away cup tie. I showed my displeasure at the ridiculous decision to charge again for the 2009 match by not paying to see the same game again. The way to hit Dundee Utd hardest is to knock them out of the cup. I will follow my team as I always do if I can get a ticket and I urge others to think carefully before following this call.

Fans were not locked in, members were. In any event this statement did not form part of the rules and I would suggest that (Mr Smith) was quite simply wrong, or at least the rules were written a different way. I would also suggest that it was equally clear that it was the intention of those who wrote the original rules, that members would indeed be locked in and that there was sound reason for that, namely the administration and record keeping involved in encashments or liquidating small numbers of shares, something to which I am sure that the then Treasurer will readily attest. So far as I am aware Rule 17 was never invoked because no administrators had been formally appointed until October 2009/February 2010. At the time I joined the Trust Board in September 2009, Steve Martin was considered the authority on the scheme rules and the Treasurer, Christine Somerville, deferred to him. There was a long running issue about who was responsible for reconciling the contributions. For reasons that I just don't have time to go into at the moment, the Administrators that were appointed at that time never met whilst I was in office and to the best of my knowledge and belief that situation persisted up until at least the end of last year. As we are both past Secretarys of the Trust, I think we can agree to disagree on our interpretations of these rules; but it is a fact that the Board adopted the changes that I proposed.

This was a bit of a grey area, because the FSA authorised the Trust but they did not regulate it, as it didn't give investment advice. The stockbrokers were responsible to the FSA for what is termed a "financial promotion" (an advertisement for the scheme) The FSA's role was to ensure that the Trust was entitled under its (approved) rules to operate such a scheme but they made it clear to me that the rules of the scheme were a matter for the Trust's board/members to determine. Therefore I very much doubt if the FSA or the Financial Services Ombudsman would have considered such an issue to be within their jurisdiction to determine.

I beg to disagree with this interpretation. Prior to the changes that were agreed in October 2009, the rules stated: RULE: 14 REPAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS 14.1 In the event that a member: (i) dies (ii) resigns his membership of the Society, or (iii) is removed from Membership......... 14.2 .... the Administratoors shall decide, in their sole discretion whether to (i) transfer to that member.......(ii) sell....and return the cash to the member (iii) retain the shares....and return the cash equivalent. I am indebted to plg for reminding me that one of the issuses was that otherwise than dieing a member had to resign or be removed (expelled) in order for the administrators to exercise their discretion. So what I should have made clear is that a MEMBER (of RST) could only get a refund on death (or as plg correctly states, his estate). This did not happen, refunds were routinely made to members on request. In my opinion it is clear from the fact that there was such a section in the rules, does mean that these were the only circumstances in which refunds could be made. The rule didn't say "or any other circumstances that the administrators/ board shall decide". The board clearly agreed with this interpretation and de facto accepted that the rules had been broken because they agreed to the new paragraphs that I proposed: 3. Insert a new paragraph 5.5: i. In the event that a Member stops making contributions to the Scheme he may request that the Administrators transfer to that Member all the shares representing that Member’s Share Entitlement. ii. In which case the Administrators will instruct the Secretary of the Society to arrange for the execution of an instrument of transfer by the Broker within 21 days of receipt of the notification. 4. Insert a new paragraph 14.5: i. In the event that a Member has made payments to the Scheme Bank Account that have not been used for the purchase of shares in accordance with the Scheme, the Member, former Member or his personal representative may request that the Administrators refund any such Contributions. ii. Upon receipt of any such valid request the Administrators will arrange to pay the refund to the Member, former Member or his personal representative within 21 days. iii. Interest will be paid on any such refund subject to a minimum amount of £100 (reference being a high interest account determined by the Administrators). The following amended wording was ratified in February 2010: 4. Insert a new paragraph 5.5: i. In the event that a Member stops making contributions to the Scheme he may request that the Administrators transfer to that Member all the shares representing that Member’s Share Entitlement or sell said shares at his cost. ii. In which case the Administrators in their sole discretion will instruct the Secretary of the Society to arrange for the execution of an instrument of transfer by the Broker within 21 days of receipt of the request or sell within 21 days of receipt of the request all of the shares constituting that Member’s Scheme entitlement and return the cash to the member. 5. Insert a new paragraph 14.5: i. In the event that a Member has made payments to the Scheme Bank Account that have not been used for the purchase of shares in accordance with the Scheme, the Member, former Member or his personal representative may request that the Administrators refund any such Contributions. ii. Upon receipt of any such valid request the Administrators will arrange to pay the refund to the Member, former Member or his personal representative within 21 days. iii. Any interest earned on said contributions will be retained within the Scheme in the first instance to defray the administrative expenses of the Scheme and to the extent that said expenses have been met in full, transferred to the general bank account of the Society as a general asset of the Society. I hope this further clarification is helpful. I am sorry that I don't have time to go into any more detail on this aspect of the scheme or any of the other issues that arose; but I will try to make time to write something more comprehensive next month.

Why doesn't it belong on a public forum?

But those were the rules and presumably those who wrote them and spent how much was it, please remind me of the exact figure because it was before my time, tens of thousands of pounds if I recall, put them there for a reason. I agree with you that it was bad rule and it was one of those that I re-wrote to meet the practical situation that you faced as Treasurer; but that doesn't excuse the fact that the rules were routinely broken. I am pleased to note that you are not contesting that fact and that your radar is still working well.

At the time when I was Secretary of the Trust in late 2009 I identified that there were issues with the Gersave Scheme regarding: Definitions, Purchases, Repayment of Contributions, Interest and Administrators; the most serious of which in my opinion was that contributions were being refunded to members in circumstances other than on death, such refunds were not allowed under the rules of the scheme. Furthermore inadequate records were kept and were not fully reconciled to my knowledge during my time in office, although the then assistant secretary and my successor in office Gordon Stewart, certainly did a lot of hard work on it and my understanding is that he came close to a full reconciliation though I never saw the figures. I raised this issue with the auditors but they did not consider it their duty to audit the scheme as the monies did not belong to the Trust. I re-wrote the rules to remedy the issues that I had identified and these were adopted by the Board after lengthy debate particlarly on the issue of refunding contributions. However I was subsequently prevented from implementing the necessary changes. I will write a more detailed piece on this when I have more time but suffice to say for the moment that I am not aware of any evidence that any money was missappropriated, certainly rules were broken but that is not the same thing. I hope this will answer some of the questions that have been raised in the meantime.

I am in no doubt where the information came from and I doubt anyone else will be who has followed events these past two years.

I have been just too busy with personal and business affairs. I'm indebted to a friend for telling me about the Leggoland blog. I have asked The Times journalist, John Simpson, for a copy of the article referred to and may comment further once I have read it.

See my answer to PLG. David Low is an acquaintance of mine insofar as we are both IFA's. I was elected to the Board of Supporters Direct (UK) in June 2010 and Chair of the Scottish Council of Supporters Direct at its inaugral meeting in March 2011 and resigned in April this year. In that capacity I attended meetings of the JAG and was a member of the JRG.

On the contrary, I consulted and had the prior approval of the the then Chair, Stephen Smith. PLG is of course correct to the extent that this was about a year before I resigned from the Trust and had absolutely nothing to do with it.

It's more fun and hopefully thought provoking than just posting the answers straight off; plus it winds you up and I just wanted to test if your automated system that tracks everything I post on here was still working. Pleased to see that it is.

I have some comments and questions but it's late so I'll start with two: Why use an English firm of solicitors whose furthest north office is in the fair city of Manchester and who have been widely and roundly criticised throughout the Trust movement in Scotland (including members of the current Council and particularly by the current Chair of Supporters Direct Scotland) for their inability to provide Scottish legal advice. Why were Cobbetts not at the meeting today? Of course, I know the answers to both these questions but I'll let you all have some guesses first.

Nice piece of writing "54". That bit sounds right but the rest sounds like a figment of your extremely fertile imagination; much like some other bollocks I've been reading tonight. If Ochilview was 12,000 ft below sea level, the Titanic would be sitting on top of it. And of course the SFL have no authority over the time added on by a referee. I suppose that they kick off at dawn on April the 1st and keep playing till dusk?

Of these I would think that Stefan Klos would be a strong candidate.

Thanks for correction, unusually for me I didn't do my research; TBH I did think we had bought him but I am fairly sure that it was well known at the time that he would only stay a couple of years for a football education and then return to Italy. But you are spot on, thanks again.

Actually I think he's becoming a bit iconic, with his max 30 min appearances, rather like Sebo but unlike Sebo he didn't score against Brazil. Speaking of whom: "On 15 September 2010 Šebo joined Slovan Bratislava.........From the 10th round onwards he scored 22 league goals and, subsequently, became the top scorer of the league once again, beating the nearest opponent by 4 goals, while playing only in approximately 22 competitive matches, leaving former employers mystified." Now scored 28 in 49 games (Wikipedia)