BrahimHemdani

There was no intent to mislead, Greg; most of the candidates stated Twitter names but my statement is the only one that shows my web forum names. Perhaps you should have asked RF or SD to amend your statement accordingly.

The difference with respect is that I questioned the fact that certain candidates may have a conflict of interest or be in receipt of hospitality which may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised. I did not make any personal attacks on any candidate in the election, nor would I.

I received a copy of this email to the RFB from John Syme of Sons of Truth. On Nov 15, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sons Truth <sonsoftruth@aol.co.uk> wrote: Hi Alan and Gary. I have only just been made aware of the complaint made by a member of the public in relation to Alan and I have listened to the call where she gave the reasons for her complaint in that she claimed Alan had mentioned a breach of the DPA by the RFFF which had caused her to receive more abuse from people who follow Sons of Struth and Craig Houston. She has got this completely wrong. It was myself who raised it on my page and subsequently a poster on Rangers Media copied it and posted it on there in a thread that involved Alan. He did not post the information, he didnt quote it, copy it or do anything with it. A proper investigation by the Club would have identified this. I do not have the appropriate contact details to forward this on to the people who looked at the complaint but i was hoping that you could pass this on to them on my behalf. I understand there are other issues which Im not party to, but for the public complaint at least, they need to know the truth and should re-consider their findings. Can you please confirm receipt of this and also confirm that they have viewed this email. Thanks in advance. John Syme.

As previously stated, I raised these matters in writing before the relevant meeting. You are correct that I complained about you because you were making critical posts about a fellow candidate in the election. I know that one member of the public made a complaint about me that was subsequently proven to be completely false. I do not know the identity of the two board members who were alleged to have made complaints; but I am sure that you, even with all your enmity towards me, would agree that it was out of order for Rangers to deny me natural justice by not setting out the alleged complaints, providing the names of the alleged complainers and allowing me an opportunity to defend myself. Unlike you, I did not seek a legal remedy against the Club despite being advised that that was open to me.

He said himself in his post that he is not.

Wasn't aware of that thanks but wouldn't have thought that was allowed in Germany. I'll enquire.

Hamburg have a similar if even more complex board scheme and their benefits include a help station at away matches etc. IIRC they handle away ticket sales and get 10% of the proceeds which helps their funding. Would that we could start with a blank sheet of paper.

That came out on Wednesday 10 February 2016 at 14:56., very shortly after the polls opened. And I'd still like to know how the Louden got my email address because I certainly never gave it to them. (And yes I know I can unsubscribe thanks.)

The Constitution was imposed by Rangers from the outset, any changes could only be "suggested" by RFB and had to be approved by Rangers. There was never any mention of it being ratified and it was used in all sorts of ways not least to remove me. So I beg to differ.

I am not going to edify Mr Dingwall's ludicrous report about SDS by copying it here but I obtained £70,000 funding from the SG in September 2011 to keep the organisation, which was bankrupt and had to opbtain a loan from SD London to pay staff salaries, going until April 2012. The funding was provided precisely to develop the Scottish Football Supporters Network, viz: Mr Alan Harris Supporters Direct in Scotland Robert Owen House 87 Bath Street Glasgow G2 2EE ___ 22 September 2011 Dear Mr Harris SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT AWARD OF GRANT FOR SUPPORTERS DIRECT IN SCOTLAND The Scottish Ministers, in exercise of their powers under Section 1A of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 1978 (as inserted by Section 9 of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004) hereby offer to give Supporters Direct in Scotland (“the Grantee”) a grant of SEVENTY THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING (£70,000), payable during the Financial Year 2011-12, in connection with supporting the delivery of a Scottish Football Supporters Network, which is more particularly described in Schedule 1 (“the Project”) and subject to the terms and conditions set out below. 2.4 The main objective of the Grant is to develop a provisionally entitled Scottish Football Supporters Network which aims to be a one-stop solution for football supporter engagement in Scotland:- • Mapping the supporter landscape – utilise the existing trust network to collect contact details along with size, scale and scope information for every identifiable supporters organisation or group who are linked to a Scottish football club. • Promoting the Network and surveying supporters and their organisations – organise a number of seminar events to bring these groups together to demonstrate the value of joining the Network. Design surveys for individual fans and groups to gain views on ways forward. • Signing Up Supporter Organisations – Based on the events and analysis of the surveys they will invite groups and individuals to join their Network. • These all aim to increase the number of supporters SDiS represent from the current estimated 15,000 supporters up to at least 30,000 supporters who are either affiliated to supporters’ trusts, groups or are individual supporters by 31 March 2012. We more than surpassed this target and the funding application process was then taken over by me and the UK Chair Brian Burgess as the staff were unsuccessful and together we obtained a grant of £140,000 per year for 3 years, which actually allowed the senior position to be upgraded to Head of Supporters Direct Scotland and additional staff to be employed (four in total if I recall correctly), all contrary to Mr Dingwall's comments. What is correct is that the entire Board of SDS were of the view that Scotland would be better placed as separate organisation holding its own money and employing its own staff; but when we failed to convince the membership, 5 of the 6 board members including me did the honourable thing and resigned. The grant funding was slashed in 2015 so that currently SDS is only able to employ one member of staff. I believe I was asked somewhere in this thread about my achievements on football boards: I'd certainly have to rank obtaining £490,000 grant funding from the SG high on the list.

I accepted long ago and reiterated tonight that I was wrong to publish the letters. However, most if not all those who had experience of financial services confirmed I took the only possible course of action in the circumstances.

I am sure Mr Graham can speak for himself but would you not agree that it is out of order for a RST Board Member to comment on the conduct of the RF election?

FS That was proposed by Rev MacQuarrie, completely contrary as you say to the Constitution, as was a propsal for rotational office bearers and the delay in the election process which was supposed to be conducted at the first meeting. As you say Rangers' solicitors advised Rev MacQuarrie to follow the Constitution i.e. to conduct the elections on the first past the post system. In all my many years on various committees and boards I never saw such unnnecessary delay and such a convoluted process as was proposed for the election of office bearers in the RFB when the process was clearly set out in the Constitution and one can only speculate as to why these delays occurred and why these proposals were brought forward. The rest of your post is pure conjecture unless that is you were one of the two board members who were alleged to have made complaints. What is not conjecture is that I rejected overtures from three members to run for Vice Chair and was one of two candidates for election to the post of Secretary; and when I was removed from the Board, that left the other candidate to be elected unopposed. But you are absolutley right to draw attention to one thing about me. I believe that Rules and Constitutions are there for a reason, the proper conduct of business; and I will always oppose those who try to ride roughshod over the Constitution of any body of which I am a member. One day you'll get tired writing all this guff about me but I'm not holding my breath.

Sorry guys but once again, I was not concerned about JB investing as much as he wanted to invest in Rangers, my sole concern was that if he became a director (which he would have required for the amount of his investment) the amount of time he would have had to spend on Rangers business would have reduced the amount of time he could spend on fund management and that might lead to a reduction in fund performance. As rbr says I had an obligation to express that concerrn. At the time he made his own assessment and decided that he didn't have the time to become involved in a company that was in administration. Clearly the situation has changed now.

Dear Mr Graham I hesitate to respond to one such as your good self whose debating and commentating skills are legend but there area number of inaccuracies in your post that I need to correct. Firstly, I did not insinuate anything about you. I made a comment about "at least one of those who is taking part in the merger talks"; if you took that to refer to yourself then that's up to you. I also wonder why you chose to make that post here since the apparently offending post was made on RM? I am sure that members of RF will be indebted to you for your advice (although I have no idea why you as an RST Board member would feel it is appropriate step into this debate) but whilst you are correct that RF is not currently a member of SD, you are quite wrong to suggest that if RF was a member it could opt out of its rules. I believe that as a former main board member of SD and Chair of SDS I have somewhat more experience in these matters than you. I am advised that the question of SD membership has been discussed by RF on a number of occasions and remains a "live" topic. RF was founded with considerable assistance from SDS. Andrew Jenkin of SDS was appointed as an "independent person involved within the process." (AJ). Approximately 20 hours after nominations closed all candidates were sent the Supporters Direct Code of Conduct for Directors and asked to get "in touch if there is anything within this which you feel does not make you suitable to become a Director of Rangers First." The Code of Conduct for Directors states inter alia: 6.4 Directors must "avoid conflicts of interest" 24.0 Directors should not be in receipt of hospitality ..... that may compromise their position or lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organisation has been compromised. It also states that all Directors must be elected in an election conducted under the organisation's election policy and have complied with that policy. The SD Election Rules Policy states inter alia: 4(a) Candidates must not be an employee of Supporters Direct. So in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC In addition, all Members seeking election to the Society’s Board, Council or Advisory bodies will be required to sign a declaration on the nomination form to confirm that they will comply with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT which states inter alia: 2. Qualifications for office. To qualify for elected office with Supporters Direct individuals must not be an employee of Supporters Direct. So again in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC and expands on Conflicts of Interest and Prejudicial Interest and in particular stresses that the member "must consider whether 'an ordinary member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would think that their personal interest was so significant that it would prejudice their decision on this matter'". 5 (e) Declaring Gifts and Hospitality Elected members should not be in receipt of hospitality, goods, services, gifts or any other benefit, that may compromise either their position or that of the organization, or may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised. So anyone who is standing in this election has committed themselves to abiding by the SD Code of Conduct for Directors, which implies compliance with the SD Election Rules which in turn require compliance with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT. However, if the election is not being conducted under SD Rules, why were candidates asked to signify compliance with the Code of Conduct for Directors which itself requires compliance with the SD Rules & Election Policy which prohibit conflicts of interest or the acceptance of hospitality? On the other hand if SD Rules do not apply to this election then precisely what rules do apply and where can I find them? These questions are not directed at you, Mr Graham, since you are not a member of RF. Even if no rules at all apply to the election a director must avoid conflicts of interest and must not accept benefits from third parties. As a company director yourself thoise are Statutory Duties with which you will be familiar are you not? 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.

Thank you for this appraisal Craig. I can see where you are coming from. At the time I had not submitted an application to be a candidate and the rumours of who else was standing were just that, rumours. A number of people here and elsewhere can verify that I asked for advice privately about whether or not I should stand which I considered over the weekend and did not submit my application until an hour before the deadline closed. I would accept that I might have published the fact that I was considering running in the election but I get enough free advice on here without inviting more and I did raise these issues with both SDS and RF before the list of candidates was announced. The issue about Rangers imposing a consultant on the merger talks is quite another matter and I stand by what I have said in that respect.

I will answer these questions and comments hopefully for the last time. GS is wrong, I did not write to his boss saying I was unhappy about him investing in Rangers, that was not the issue at all. Furhtermore, I did not “shop” John Bennett. The article about his possible involvement in Rangers was published in the financial trade press on 12 March 2012, http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/hendersons-bennett-joins-blue-knights-to-ride-to-rangers-rescue/a573594 two days before I first wrote to Hendersons. In fact what happened was that a client drew my attention to the article, why was why I decided to act. At the time Mr Bennett managed over £2 billion worth of funds at Henderson and I had clients invested in some of the funds he managed. So my concern was about the possible impact on Fund performance if he started to devote part of his time to Rangers. My first obligation was to my clients, ahead of Rangers or any personal interest. Many of my clients knew I was a Rangers fan; had I not raised the matter and fund performance suffered subsequently those clients rightly could have questioned why I did not take action on their behalf. John Bennett told me that he fully understood my concerns. Contrary to the information put out by Paul Murray, he was not a member of TBK. He said that “he was one of the parties to have expressed an interest” in the consortium but that his name had been quoted by PM “early”. He said he had been in Glasgow, “looked at the complexities in terms of the management (of Rangers) and had had time to study what was required”. In his opinion it would require a “full-time commitment” and that was “not something that was able to offer”. I published details of that conversation with his full knowledge and permission. As numerous people have commented I did not have sufficient “clout” to stop Mr Bennett doing anything he wanted to do or to force Hendersons to take any action that they would not otherwise have done. I simply registered my concerns on behalf of my clients. At no time did I ever suggest that he shouldn't invest in Rangers. I have acknowledged that I made a mistake in publishing the two letters I wrote to Hendersons but I acted in the best interests of my clients which was my obligation at the time. As a result I was subjected to all manner of vile abuse, threats of violence and incitement to violence against my person, my property and my business and others were incited to violence against me on the Follow Follow web site. I took police advice to cease posting for a period and not to go to Ibrox unaccompanied. I will be forever indebted to Craig for his long summary post at that time. When I stood for election to the Rangers Fans Board in 2014 a member of this site posted a link to the same thread on Follow Follow. This led to a second police investigation and a report to the Procurator Fiscal. However, the police were unable to trace any of the perpetrators, so no charges were brought; but the proprietor of FF withdrew the thread. This subject has now been aired three times in four years and everyone can make their own judgements. Whilst I have no wish to stifle legitimate debate I would request that any further questions are directed to me by PM.

As Frankie said this morning, I was not able to go online yesterday due to personal matters which essentially kept me up 24 hours; the only thing I did in connection with the election was to sign up to the Pledge. Rangers First should be an independent community interest company, happy to assist the Club but able to be the eyes and ears of the ordinary fan, adopt an independent stance where necessary, to protect the club. The current board will not be here forever and Rangers First can protect Rangers for the future by continuing to grow its shareholding. No director of Rangers First should receive any remuneration from Rangers Football Club be it directly or indirectly through their employer. 95% of all donations received from Rangers First members should be spent on share purchases with 5% for administration costs. Rangers First should be run by its directors on behalf of its members with the three founding principles of Accountability, Consultation and Transparency. We feel in all these areas Rangers First could improve. I want to make it clear that notwithstanding the foregoing I am 100% committed to a single fans organisation. However, I share the view of some people that the merger talks appear to be proceeding with undue haste and are shrouded in secrecy which has given rise to various concerns about the outcome. As an RF member I have called on the existing Directors for more transparency about the talks in line with the above principles. I am also concerned that the Club may be exerting undue influence on the talks through the attendance of Director, John Gilligan, his former associate Malcolm Stenhouse in the role of Consultant, his friend Alan Fraser ostensibly representing the defunct Rangers Fans Board and Andy Kerr representing the defunct Assembly; all of whose roles in these matters appear tenuous at best. That said it will be for the RF members to decide how to proceed once the full proposals are published. I have skimmed through the pages since this morning and will review the rest later and respond where I think it is necessary or appropriate. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you for your kind comments and for your consideration.

On the contrary I saw exactly what was going on with different standards of policing and stewarding the same situations e.g. flags and the attitude of stewards towards fans; in different constabularies in Scotland. Furthermore I forced the police to accept that and initiated training standards for stewards. You see the problem with your last sentence is that you are stuck in this petty minded them and us mentality. It's not a case of who would suffer the most. It's a case of Clubs accepting responsibility for what happens inside their football grounds. I must say it's quite comical to find you and others elsewhere siding with Graham Speirs on this debate; but then he doesn't understand what strict liability means; you should know better.

That might depend on who the fans rep is, might it not?

What a load of utter nonsense, which demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about this subject and are simply intent on attacking me at every conceivable opportunity. It has nothing whatsover to do with "Rangers haters" or our so-called "enemies". If I could be bothered wasting my time I'd send you the research that identified that unacceptable conduct amongst fans was prevalent in many forms all over Scotland; in fact at the time Hibs fans were one of the biggest groups causing problems for the police and one of the biggest issues that I had to tackle was inconsistency of policing and stewarding.

No doubt you were about to post my answer as well

At the risk of upsetting you when you have been good enough to support me in this thread, I'd say the answer is fairly obvious - none put themselves forward. So far as I know there were 24 applicants and all were passed/approved or whatever but there are only 23 names on the list so it would appear that one may have dropped out, but none were rejected according to SDS. So is not the real question why no "tradesmen types" put themselves forward? I think one answer may be that generally speaking tradesmen don't have the time to be emailing back and forward all day whereas lawyers, accountants and financial types like I was pre-retirement, usually can make time here and here. It used to be the same issue in refereeing and may well be the same today. Tradesmen can't take time off to travel from Glasgow to say Dundee to referee on a Tuesday night as I recall being asked to do one mid winter afternoon but folk like me could do that. That's why most referees tend to be "professional" types and there are very few tradesmen at the top level.

I'm going to tell you this once more Mr Buster so hopefully you'll get it straight this time. I have no involvement and no knowledge whatsoever of the company to which you refer. Now put up or shut up.