BrahimHemdani

(3)The references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to a regulated football match include a reference to any place (other than domestic premises) at which such a match is televised; and, in the case of such a place, the references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to the ground where the regulated football match is being held are to be taken to be references to that place. (4)For the purpose of subsection (2)(a) and (b)— (a)a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a regulated football match whether or not the person attended or intended to attend the match, and (b)a person’s journey includes breaks (including overnight breaks). That party of the legislation is intended to catch such behaviour in a pub; though it only applies in the specified circumstances.

There was a cross party group of "Rangers" MP's at Westminster, including the Govan MP Ian Davidson. I belive that Brian Donohoe, recently elected to the Board of RF was the Secretary or Chair latterly. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461452.MPs_form_Rangers_supporters_apos__club_at_Westminster/

I strongly suspect that my grandfather would not have taken me to see Celtic v Third Lanark.

What can I say if Willie Vass mistakes me for a very young Sean Connery every week.

Well, I went to "Hutchie" and I took up following Rangers because they won the first football match I was taken to see by my grandfather, Rangers v Third Lanark in 1957. I'm pretty sure that if my grandfather supported anyone it would have been the "Thirds" for cultural reasons and also because he lived just up the road from Cathkin in Mt Florida. So I'm sorry but I still don't get your point. Let's say that Mr Yousaf's father and grandfather didn't support any team , let alone Celtic; and he was not influenced by peer pressure at school. (Although one of my cousins who went to Hutchie supports Celtic, so maybe there's an underground movement going on, all this was years ago.) What are the "other" reasons, for Mr Yousaf supporting Celtic, please spell them out for us.

As Pete says a well written post but as a former Hutchesonian I would question the above paragraph on two grounds. Firstly there were two brothers Hutcheson; so it should be Hutchesons' not Hutcheson's. Secondly, I don't see the connection between a 'rugby' School and choice of football team to support.

Zelalem not even on the bench today. Pleased to see Law back in the team and would like to see him get 90 minutes rather than being auto subbed at 60 minutes. Agree Barry's real position is at no.10 but right now he's our best choice on the left. However if King could do enough to justify a place that would free up McKay.

No. I checked it on Transfermarket and I want need to count his minutes or his passes today.

Frankie From your team selection it seems you think Gersnet favourite Zelalem is the missing link; yet he has not got off the bench in our last 3 starts and has only played 183 minutes football in the last 7 league games (since the 2nd of Jan). The manager appears to have lost faith in him and it is difficult to undertsand why we kept him for the second six months of his loan deal.

He's due a ban for that downward header at Kilmarnock alone

Ronnie McKinnon was an excellent centre half, far better than his understudy Colin Jackson. He was a commanding header of the ball, good at interceptions and even better when tackling back towards his own goal. Greig, McKinnon, Baxter was an outstanding half back line.

It certainly would be interesting to know what influenced the choice of venue.

You are missing my point. The complaint is rightly directed at the SNP for holding an event in a "Celtic" pub which has been associated with "offensive behaviour". Mr Yousaf is a Minister in the SNP Government, who supported the legislation. From that perspective it's irrelevant what team he supports.

I do not agree with mixing football with politics but Mr Yousaf was a major proponent of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act http://www.glasgowsnp.org/MSPs/Humza_Yousaf_MSP/Committee_backs_Offensive_Behaviour_Bill/ etc so the decision to hold any event in this particular pub was at best ill-advised and at worst a major own goal for the SNP in general and Mr Yousaf in particular. However, referring to him as Celtic fan was crass and irrelevant. If you are trying to make a political point then surely it would much better to refer to him by his title, Minister for Europe and International Development.

Hopefully you will make your views known to the powers that be at the RST.

Was thinking that before I read your post. Great minds and all that TB....

RF does have Articles of Association http://www.rangersfirst.org/media/minutes-agendas-newsletters/doc_2014-03-04.pdf (not obvious when you look at the site, you need to fund the small print "downloads) but they read to me as very much off the shelf and allow them to do virtually anything; whereas I would have thought the company would have been restricted to its original objects i.e. buying shares or otherwise investing in the Club. But the objects are very widely drawn: "Objects The objects of the Company are to carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation) to the community of Glasgow Rangers supporters." as are the powers: Powers To further its objects the Company may do all such lawful things as may further the Company’s objects and, in particular, but, without limitation, may borrow or raise and secure the payment of money for any purpose including for the purposes of investment or of raising funds. I did offer to help them write a Constitution or make the Articles more specific two years ago but they never took me up on it. Lastly I think he means good enough to be a Director of Rangers not Rangers First since he's already been elected to that!

The theologian wasn't elected.

Obviously this needs further clarification. Theoretically you are correct about the share capital but since shares were not being issued i.e. the £1 shares in the Society, it did not reflect the membership numbers and neither did the income from membership fees which was partly due to the incidence of an unknown number of life members and the reason I have already stated about lapsed members. I don't doubt that Christine kept a record of the income; however it is a fact that the Scheme itself was not audited. In fact I raised that specific issue. As I said, to my recollection the Board Member responsible for the scheme (not Christine) did not or could reconcile the total with the amounts accruing to each member although I asked him numerous times to do so and as a result I recall at least one occasion when Christine had to do her best to assess the total for a particular member who had to be repaid. No doubt she will confirm that fact. The Rules were not redrafted for that purpose, you have misunderstood. The Rules were redrafted to cover at least two situations that I can recall - refunding members other than on death and not buying shares as money accrued. In these areas (there may have been some others but these are the ones I remember of the top of my head) the practice differed from the Rules. I said at the time that either the practice had to change or the Rules had to be changed; the Board chose the latter course. I wrote the new Rules which were then adopted by the Board. I trust this clarifies.

It was a long meeting, more than 2 hours, I took verbatim notes of as much as I could. If I do this I will do it in full because I am not going to be accused of deliberately missing out something someone said. If I miss anything it will be because I didn't write it down at the time or can't read my own notes (in which casee I'll say that). If it is too long for you then you can edit it but I won't do that. It will be in at least two parts.

I wasn't planning to make any comments simply to post what was said according to my notes.

I did not say I would be writing an 11 page report I said I had 11 pages of notes in a shorthand notebook. However you have made your point about Gersnet so I won't publish anything here even although Richard Scott who chaired the meeting has confirmed "this Meeting was in the public domain (with Press there etc)" and in answer to the specific question you posed says "I do not see any reason why not". I doubt anyone will find the notes of the meeting boring.

Firstly I see no connection between the two situations. I was not trying to censor anything just to stop blatant denigratory comments and that was agreed by ALL RFB Members. Secondly I said I get in bother, it's something of a jump to say I cause all of that though I recognise that I do bring some of it on myself. Some of the stuff that is written about me is utter nonsense.

YES, those were the "official" Minutes. The Minutes are correct but I didn't take them; they are not written in my style. I do not write bullet point Minutes and I most certainly would not have said "Alan Harris discussed the website navigation and how difficult it is to find the RFB today, and potentially considering our own website", for example. If I had written that I would have said "Alan Harris raised the subject of website navigation......... The suggestion was that I had written and published the Minutes prematurely which I couldn't have done as I didn't take them. FS confirmed that from his recollection. I did say that I thought the Rev MacQuarrie took those Minutes but I am not certain. However, since it appears to be important to you to know for some reason I will ask around.* In any event I am not sure the point you are trying to make here; but just in case you are still confused, I raised that and it was agreed unanimously IIRC, because certain members were indeed making comments about others online that I regarded as denigratory and I wanted it stopped. You appear to be trying to make a comparison between what is recorded in that Minute and the RF Election. Once again, I did not make any negative comments about any candidate in the Election. I simply stated that IMO certain candidates should have been debarred due to what I considered to be conflicts of interest and acceptance of hospitality that might lead a reasonable person to take the view that their impartiality might be compromised in discussions with the Club. A number of other respected posters on here agreed with that view in some way, shape or form (and one person in particular was quite vociferous about it at the AGM) and others disagreed which is fair enough. Quite how you can equate that with making denigratory comments about a candidate is beyond me. I do recall being criticised for dominating that meeting with issues that "away fans" asked me to raise; whereas you will see that ACD aside (and GG about canvassing) no one else had any issues to raise. That was in part at least because I had been pro active here, on RM and Rangers Chat asking for issues that any "away fan" wanted to be raised. Hope that helps you. *EDIT: One former member has come back, without prompting, saying he thinks it was Rev MacQuarrrie.

Pity you weren't at the dinner or you could have asked him.