BrahimHemdani

That's very kind of you, Greg. I'll take that as a YES then shall I?

I think we know that Christine and it applies equally to both schemes (now that we know that RF has 9,000 not 14,000 contributors). Then why don't you state the number who bought shares outright and the number of regular contributors, rather than continuing to obfuscate the issue?

Whether you think so or not, Craig, it's a highly relevant question, for a whole host of reasons that I needn't spell out and my question is will Christine ever give us a straight answer of or just continue to obfuscate as she has been doing for the past two years.

I would like to pay tribute to Richard Scott who was unsuccessful in the election. Richard has played a leading role in establishing RF over the past year and I believe that his wise counsel and boundless enthusiasm for the project will be a loss to the Board.

Fine, wrong word, which I'll correct. The point and you know full well the point is that the site indicates that 13,954 people are CONTRIBUTING, and it seems that is WRONG. "Regsitered contributors" implies that number are contributing; and please don't tell us it doesn't imply that because it obviously does have that implication. It's not often I agree with Zappa on here but he appears to be correct when he says the counter only ticks upwards. Why doesn't it say 9,000 or whatever number, perhaps you can answer that, Greg?

I believe you have made your point numerous times on this web forum and RM where I will no doubt find it repeated yet again. I am told that your friends on FF have congratulated you on your efforts. I am sorely tempted to say more but I see no point in drawing this out. I stood on my CV which I did when elected to the RFB and steadfastly refused to list what I saw as my achievments at the RST, SDS and RF because I knew that if I did so it would only encourage more sniping. I was unsuccessful and I'm fine with that. Once again I congratulate those who have been elected and wish them well in the tasks ahead.

Would it not be more correct to say he was beaten by seven other candidates.

I wrongly assumed that the number on the web site was correct, but I stand corrected. The web site says 13,954 Registered Contributors. I would suggest that the misinformation comes from RF not me.

Thanks and will you now confirm that RST have approximately 1,100 contributors to BR.

Except Rev MacQuarrie.

A very good question.

13,954 to be precise.

Divide by 7 or at least an average of say 6 votes per person; so if your count is correct then it was about a 16%-18% turnout.

I would like to thank all those who voted for me and congratulate those who were elected. I stood in the election because I felt that my financial and administrative skills and experience of various football boards would be of assistance to RF going forward. I was well warned and well aware that by sticking my head above the parapet I would be sniped at from all directions and in that I have not been disappointed. The new Board of RF has only one member of the old Board as it faces the challenges of the merger talks and I wish them well in that endeavour.

Candidate Votes 1 .Richard Gough 2,009 2. Ricki Neill 1,652 3. James Blair 1,147 4. Greg Marshall 974 5. Brian Donohoe 941 6. Kelly Johnstone 864 7. Peter Ewart 843 8. Stuart MacQuarrie 835 9. Derek Miller 701 10. Marc Alexander 668 11. Graham Campbell 665 12. Graeme Henderson 627 13 .Iain Martin 531 14. Ronnie Johnstone 521 15. Brian Bowman 501 16. Richard Scott 492 17. Andy McLintock 432 18. Chris Smith 386 19. Alan Harris 338 20. Calvin Campbell 330 21. Adam Campbell 270 22. Darren Thomson 210 23. Ryan Thomson

They exclude you under the SD Code of Conduct for Directors which all candidates were asked if they had any issues with which is another way of inviting compliance with those rules. I am not being disingenuous at all. I have stated what I truly believe to be the case and it is clear that many people including other candidates in the election have the same or similar concerns.

14,000 people are paying automatically monthly, not much discussion needed there I wouldn't think.

I think that's where we differ in this,Craig. Seems to me that almost any discussion at the RF Board would be about Rangers shares or otherwise investing in club assets and all such discussions would present conflicts for Mr Blair.

You would certainly think so.

Up to you mate but you might want to reconsider if it's wise to post your phone number.

Up to you mate but you might want to reconsider if it's wise to post your phone number.

You can have mine it's too wet to get out of the car Seriously there are always tickets down here. Worth taking a chance if you don't have too far to travel.

Share purchase is an obvious area where a conflict would arise for James Blair at least and I am given to undestand already has arisen in the past. I believe there was a discussion about going into the market to buy shares at a certain price which JB argued against on the basis it might lower the value of the Club. Would you not agree that that was a conflict of interest between the objectives of RFB and the Club?

I disagree with you on both counts Craig. Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC, I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

I am happy to accept the first part of that Greg and apologise unreservedly for the error and any offence. I wrongly inferred that the fact that no other candidate's statement indicated a web forum name meant that they had not put names on the form, which clearly was not correct in your case at least. But I think it's an error rather than a deliberate omission by SDS, one which IMHO you should ask to be corrected. I declared a business Twitter name that I never use for any football matter; so asked for it to be omitted. Trust this clarifies.