BrahimHemdani

You seem like an intelligent chap, I suggest you re-read what I said very carefully but this time pause for breath before you jump to the wrong conclusions.

Sorry to disappoint you, buster, but I know nothing about this company.

Wel I know I've got 2 votes anyway, can I count on your support to make it 3?

Nothing whatsover, sorry I can't be more helpful.

I can see what you're trying to do buster but I'm not going to react because I'm the one that'll get the red card.

To be fair to Mr Dingwall he did offer to reinstate me on FF when I was on the Board of the RST, however I politely declined to save him from barring me again.

Thanks again for that.

Fame at last, what can I say except they didn't stop me getting elected to the RFB.

That's a good question, Ian. I suppose the argument will be that if one pops one's head above the parapet then it's fair to take a shot and I accept that. So long as it's reasoned argument and not unsubstantiated crap or threatening or incitement to violence as has happened elsewhere in the past. No other candidate declared a web forum presence (though there is at least one apart from me on RM) and it appears (though I have no real way of knowing) that I am the only one on here so again I suppose I am an easy target; but many would say I deserve it for various misdemeanours perceived or real. And BTW I know I have made mistakes over the past few years but the garbage I am accused of in the anonymous blog is just that, garbage. The problem is that if I wrote an article taking the blog apart limb from limb and pointing to all my achievements at the RST, SDS and some of things I tried to do in the RFB and would like to do with RF then I would get pelters from the very same people who are happy to criticise my failings. What I do think is completely unfair is that Frankie and the Team have allowed publication on here of the link to the anonymous blog which they apparently accept is unsubstantiated nonsense and yet when I made comments about a certain individual a while back that were held to be unsubstantiated crap, I got a yellow card. That said I have taken great comfort from a poster on RM who says that http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?/topic/291659-rangers-first-election/&page=5

Coming from someone who has more often disagreed than agreed with my posts on various issues that comment is much appreciated.

Fair enough it's your site so you set the rules. However, I would just say that the comments I have made about the employment of two candidates are substantiated by their own electoral statements from which I have quoted. Mr Gough says he is employed by Rangers and Mr Blair says he has acted for Rangers. I also recall getting a yellow card for what you previously referred to as "unsubstantiated crap" if memory serves me; so maybe you can issue one to FF as well.

Now that you've done that and I've read it with thanks, don't you think you should remove it (and #41 where I quote Ian's post) for the reason you state.

Happy to stand corrected on the names of the rooms and the half time pies and biscuits (and FT if you say so). I'll add that we were accommodated in the members area of the main stand though my own seat is in a better position.

So it would appear, Ian. I won't dignify any of that nonsense with a reply except to say I'm interested to learn why I was removed from the RFB.

FS, I'm suprised you're not standing, if you're a member that its? But perhaps you're tired of all the crap that goes with elections.

Yes, in the Blue Room at the RFB pre-meeting and coffee & sandwiches at the first RFB Board meeting. In fact that's where the picture I have posted was taken.

From Mr Blair's statement; - See more at: http://www.rangersfirst.org/candidates-14/#sthash.FandEN7l.dpuf[/b] "Employment" normally implies being paid does it not? "Acting for the Club" would normally imply being paid or ones' firm being paid for one's servicers would it not?

I'm, not sure how his mode of transport affects the perception of a conflict, BD. But no I'm, not saying NEVER. I can only answer by reiterating: 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.

As regards Mr Blair, although he may or may not personally be receiving any remuneration for his role as Company Secretary, he is a partner in the firm of Anderson Strathern and one has to assume that they are billing Rangers for legal advice. Director or not he sits in the Directors Box every week. If he's not a director then it's hospitality surely? However, it's quite easy for all candidates to clear up any conflicts of interest real or perceived.

From Richard Gough's statement

I take the view that all candidates should have been asked to declare any income or hospitality they receive directly or indirectly from the Club and all candidates had an opportunity to do so on their statements.

For the simple reason that I didn't know for sure who the candidates were, I only had hearsay evidence; and remember that it was made clear that not all those who put themselves foreard would be on the final list. As it turns out it appears that all or at least 23 out of 24 names have been included. However, I am happy to confirm that I raised all this with Supporters Direct and RF BEFORE the candidates were announced. RF have "noted" my comments.; SDS initially said they had "passed" all the candidates but then retracted and said that " It wasn't/isn't my place to adjudicate who should stand - simply be an independent person involved within the process. I will make my recommendations to the newly formed board as to what processes should be implemented. ". I am not quote sure what the purpose would be of having an independent party review candidates applications/statements against a set criteria and then not have that party adjudicate on who can stand in the election and I have said so to SDS and will make the point to RF as well.

Fine. Richard Gough is an employee of the Club and accepts hospitality from the Club in the form of a seat in the Directors Box. I don't know if the Rev MacQuarrie earns any money from his various services for the Club but he accepts hospitality in the form of a seat in the Directors Box every week. James Blair is the Rangers Company Secretary, so he is directly or indirectly remunerated for services to Rangers IFC. Is that clear enough?

I note that I am the only candidate who has declared a presence on any web forums. I am suprised to find that there are some candidates who would appear to have a conflct of interest insofar as they or their companies derive some part at least of their income from work for or on behalf of Rangers FC. I understand that the RF Election is being conducted under SD Rules and all candidates were issued the Supporters Direct Code of Conduct for Directors with the acknowledgement email and requested to confirmation adherence to the Code. I believe that the SD Election Rules and Elected Member Code of Conduct are also relevant. The Code of Conduct for Directors states inter alia: 6.3 Directors must "act at all times in the best interests of the Society - .......ensuring that the Society's interests come first". 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. The SD Election Rules Policy states inter alia: 4(a) Candidates must not be an employee of Supporters Direct. The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT states inter alia: 2. Qualifications for office. To qualify for elected office with Supporters Direct individuals must not be a) Be an employee of Supporters Direct and expands on Conflict of Interest 5. Conflict of interests (a) Personal Interests A member must regard themselves as having a personal interest in any matter if the decision on a matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well being or financial position of the member, a relative or friend or any connected organisation, to a greater extent than that of other persons or organisations. A personal interest must be declared and recorded. The declaration does not automatically prevent a member from participating fully in debate and voting. A member is not expected to know the personal interests of all their friends and relations, and is only expected to declare such an interest if they happen to be aware of it. The member must declare any personal interest at the beginning of the discussion of that particular item. (b) Prejudicial Interest It is for the member to decide whether they have a 'prejudicial interest'. They 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'. If a member decides they have a prejudicial interest in a particular matter under discussion they must declare this and withdraw from the room. As well as absenting themselves from the discussion, they must not seek to influence a decision on that item; whether by attempting to sway the decision of any other members, or by exerting influence on an officer. This Code encompasses behaviour at all Society meetings, including any sub‐ committees. and reiterates: 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. 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 advised that RF has been represented by Richard Scott and Ricki Neil at the Working Group sessions.