forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Wascally wabid webel wabbits! Oh for the day the board collectively say, "That's all folks!" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 886 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 There are rumours that the beneficiaries of some of the onerous contracts reside in the Easdale Proxies. To me, this has always seemed like the most likely explanation for the rapid disappearance of the IPO money. Does anyone know how the laws preventing conflicts of interest apply to groups like BPH or MH? If a link could be proven between the not-witnessed-by-a-lawyer, onerous contracts and these groups, would they be in serious trouble, or are they insulated by their anonymous, overseas nature? Is there even a legal way to demand evidence that would prove one way or the other if there is a link? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 To me, this has always seemed like the most likely explanation for the rapid disappearance of the IPO money. Does anyone know how the laws preventing conflicts of interest apply to groups like BPH or MH? If a link could be proven between the not-witnessed-by-a-lawyer, onerous contracts and these groups, would they be in serious trouble, or are they insulated by their anonymous, overseas nature? Is there even a legal way to demand evidence that would prove one way or the other if there is a link? A case of nonfeasance perhaps? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 To me, this has always seemed like the most likely explanation for the rapid disappearance of the IPO money. Does anyone know how the laws preventing conflicts of interest apply to groups like BPH or MH? If a link could be proven between the not-witnessed-by-a-lawyer, onerous contracts and these groups, would they be in serious trouble, or are they insulated by their anonymous, overseas nature? Is there even a legal way to demand evidence that would prove one way or the other if there is a link? Regards the law, I simply don't know how this would be interpreted or indeed any steps to take wrt any investigation (the press could start by asking Graham Wallace to expand on the issue of onerous contracts (not surprisingly he doesn't take many press questions/conferences). Take into consideration that this is what sp.ivs do for a living and they'll know very well where the boundaries of the law are and in the case of having to cross them, how best to 'camouflage' it. You would imagine given the public scrutiny they would have been especially careful. I remember back in Feburary/March of 2013 hearing on good authority that the fine detail of commercial contracts was at that time, for the eyes of a select chosen few. Those not given access, included members of the board at that time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Who says they are leaders? It seems to me that they are representatives, decided by the various bodies that make it up. Constitution? Get real. Why does it need a constitution? It's possible UoF could fold tomorrow if they achieved their aims. Please see #182. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 The UoF is a collection of democratic organisation. I wouldn't describe the UoF as an organisation. As for SoS, I'm sure it's 2 members reach consensus in its decisions. I would respectfully suggest that your second and third sentences appear to contradict the first. The Union of Fans is an umbrella organisation which comprises the main 3 supporters' groups (The Rangers Supporters Assembly, The Rangers Supporters Association and the Rangers Supporters Trust) as well as a number of other supporter groups (The Blue Order, The Union Bears, Sons of Struth) https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/about/#sthash.iSoN1RZl.dpuf Therefore I would accept that The UoF is a collection of organisations some of whom are democratic . I wouldn't describe the UoF as an organisation. - They do, see above. As for SoS, I'm sure it's 2 members reach consensus in its decisions - I'm sure that's correct. I'm not sure how delegates are apointed/selected or elected to the Assembly; I tried to find out when I was Secretary of the RST but there didn't appear to be any formal arrangements. However, since it appears to be more or less redundant, I wouldn't argue about it. I also assume that delegates to the RSA elect their officials. I've had a quick look on the respective web sites but can't find out how The Blue Order and The Union Bears are organised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Such as what I had for breakfast for example? I'll tell you what's relevant to the point you were trying to make, Zappa. I was duly elected (and in one case co-opted) to all the positions I held under constitutions based on the Co-op model rules approved by the members of the organisations concerned. So far as I am aware neither the UoF nor the SoS has a constitution and neither Mr Graham nor Mr Houston have been elected by anyone to do anything. No doubt you'll correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. Meantime, I'll bid you good day, I have grass to cut and a car to wash. No need to get your knickers in a twist or your nose put out of joint BH. You'll get your blazer some day old boy! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 Please see #182. Apart from not being totally correct, it doesn't address my point, but it seems that it's becoming a debating point if you're actually visiting the UB and TBO websites, rather than it being a serious issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 No need to get your knickers in a twist or your nose put out of joint BH. You'll get your blazer some day old boy! Picking it up from Marks on Monday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Apart from not being totally correct, it doesn't address my point, but it seems that it's becoming a debating point if you're actually visiting the UB and TBO websites, rather than it being a serious issue. I always try to be sure of my facts BD The issue of Messrs Graham and Houston's standing certainly was a serious issue but since it would now appear to be moot we needn't waste any more time debating it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.