pete 2,499 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I told my wife I was going out for a loaf, I did though come back with one 6 hours later Ha Ha It was a racing bike I used as an excuse. Trying to get up a sweat in 5 blocks on the way back was murder. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 As you yourself pointed out it opened on the 4th. I don't pretend to be an expert on this so I am not sure if the meetings "opened on the 4th" as you say (and closed on the 6th) or if the NOMAD just considered that he was obliged to hold or open meetings on the 4th in case anyone turned up claiming not to know about the change of date. I really don't understand what Llambias would have to gain by deliberately misleading the RFB and allowing them to publish a wrong date because if it was a lie then he must have known it would be exposed very quickly and he would be the one who would look bad, not the RFB. Perhaps he just made a mistake and instead of admitting that he made up a story about the date being changed to cover up, that seems silly to me, but it might have been what happened. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Serious question here Alan and before I ask it I don't care about context at all. Have you ever lied? That's a ridiculous question and one I am not going to answer because I am not on trial here, or am I? Do you want me to quote the whole judgement again so that you can bar me for trolling? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 No, in the course of the case the judge stated that he was a liar etc; all part of the same thing. Straight question - do you consider yourself 'fit and proper' in the hypothetical situation you were offered a role with the Club - Yes or No? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Straight question - do you consider yourself 'fit and proper' in the hypothetical situation you were offered a role with the Club - Yes or No? I am not sure about the point of this question but since you ask and since one word answers are not allowed: YES, I would have no difficulty in passing a "fit and proper" test by the SFA or in terms of stock market rules. I have never been charged with any offence (other than speeding about 30 years ago) never mind convicted of any offences that carry a 2 year or more jail term and I have never been a director of a company that suffered an insolvency event. In fact I have only ever been a director of three companies: Financial Services, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association (FIMBRA) Supporters Direct (UK) FansFirst Scotland Ltd In financial services terms, the test of "fit and proper" is whether a person and indeed his business is considered to be honest, competent and solvent; which I was at all times. I am not certain exactly how the AIM test might differ from that but I was assured some time ago that I would have passed. Edited March 12, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I don't pretend to be an expert on this so I am not sure if the meetings "opened on the 4th" as you say (and closed on the 6th) or if the NOMAD just considered that he was obliged to hold or open meetings on the 4th in case anyone turned up claiming not to know about the change of date. I really don't understand what Llambias would have to gain by deliberately misleading the RFB and allowing them to publish a wrong date because if it was a lie then he must have known it would be exposed very quickly and he would be the one who would look bad, not the RFB. Perhaps he just made a mistake and instead of admitting that he made up a story about the date being changed to cover up, that seems silly to me, but it might have been what happened. It was payback for the vote of no confidence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It was payback for the vote of no confidence. Then disbanding was pay back for the minutes 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It was payback for the vote of no confidence. You were 100% closer to it than me, so I am not going to argue with your opinion but if it was "payback" as you suggest then it was a silly thing to do for the reason I gave and also because it was fairly clear from his opening gambit that he was going to disband the RFB in any event, if the vote of no confidence was maintained, so he didn't need another excuse. As it happens, the RFB did give him another excuse by publishing Leach's comments about T3B. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Then disbanding was pay back for the minutes Snap see #449 at exactly the same time 11:07! Edited March 12, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Snap see #449 at exactly the same time 11:07! The fact he went ahead with the process when he knew he was out on his ear was simple spite 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.