Rangers First board candidates

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BH/Alan,

 

Can you just clarify the John Bennett rumours once and for all?

 

Bh wrote to his boss and said he was unhappy at John investing in rangers. The full letter is on here.

 

Thanks GS I've read it now.

 

The rumours go that he "hounded" JB and his employer. I'd like to ask BH/Alan if anything else happened from his end after the letter in respect of JB?

 

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.

[BEARGER 1,829]

I fail to understand your feelings on this. I'm also,a life member of RST and not particularly a fan of Dingwall, but he ain't involved in the negotiations he is not even on the RST board. At the end of the day we all will have a vote, I'm sure all will be revealed then it's make your mind up time. Best not to let our distaste of certain individuals cloud our judgement.

 

Well you should read his twitter feed , he is always in the shadows , and you can believe all you like that he isnt involved

 

He has one vote same as you and me. Just because he is in favour of something does not mean that you and I are wrong to also to be in favour.

[Bearman 9]

If at this time, despite all we've gone through in the past few years, we can't get together and form ONE body then as one guy here says, we are on the way to repeating the mistakes of our past. This is a very important time in our history. The only thing to stop us going forward is ego. There are not enough blazers to go around and some should simply accept that fact.

 

Where is the evidence? And 'we' doesn't even come into it?

[rbr 1,247]

I see you splashed it all over Twitter anyway. Why could it not go ahead?

 

I asked Rd one question , such a massive spolash that it hasnt even had a retweet nor a follow up question .

 

Ok as I asked you first, how could it go ahead if the largest group votes against it

 

By the way I am not against a new group , however I am deeply skeptical that the usual suspects are lining up for positions and are using social media to marginalise certain RF members

[rbr 1,247]

Well you should read his twitter feed , he is always in the shadows , and you can believe all you like that he isnt involved

 

He has one vote same as you and me. Just because he is in favour of something does not mean that you and I are wrong to also to be in favour.

 

Aye an FF is an open forum ,

 

Edited- blueflag

Edited February 13, 2016 by blueflag

[rbr 1,247]

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.

 

Alan , as someone who is a trustee of a pension fund , I am in 100% agreement with your actions , normal fans have no idea what responsibilities you have and what actions can be taken against you by the FSA or what possible penalties the fca can impose for misconduct/misselling . bad advice etc , but hey dont let the truth get in the way of a great internet story

[BEARGER 1,829]

He has one vote same as you and me. Just because he is in favour of something does not mean that you and I are wrong to also to be in favour.

 

Aye an FF is an open forum ,

 

I cannot disagree with that, he banned me buts it's his forum.

 

Edited bf

Edited February 13, 2016 by blueflag

[plgsarmy 111]

I asked Rd one question , such a massive spolash that it hasnt even had a retweet nor a follow up question .

 

Ok as I asked you first, how could it go ahead if the largest group votes against it

 

By the way I am not against a new group , however I am deeply skeptical that the usual suspects are lining up for positions and are using social media to marginalise certain RF members

 

It's not really the largest group. Season ticket holders also voted for it. What I'm saying that if one group decided it didn't want to participate and the others did then it would still go ahead. In my opinion of course.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I have to admit that I am disappointed in BH.

 

Initially his "question" about the candidacy of Gough, McQuarrie et al and his "question" about the consultant being put forward seemed, on the face of it, to be someone who cared about the Club and cared about the Club doing the right thing. And whilst this may still be the case it is abundantly clear that there was, simultaneously, a personal agenda being pursued.

 

In an attempt to show to the people that "look at me, I know a fair amount of information about the Club that others don't and I am bringing it into the public domain so that I can question it and question whether it is appropriate, on behalf of the supporters" it is obvious that this was done with his own personal candidacy in mind.

 

What is also disappointing is that the accusations made against those seemingly running for positions was done a) by someone who themselves is running b) by someone who seems to champion "transparency" and then doesn't provide the same transparency themselves and c) with what now looks like a clear agenda to discredit other applicants whilst strengthening their own likelihood for election.

 

At the time BH was discrediting, or casting into doubt the appropriateness, of other candidates he really should have been saying "for clarity & transparency I have put forward my own name for a position on the Board". But instead he masked it all as appearing to be nothing more than an investigative fan looking out for everyone else's best wishes.

 

I personally have never liked dirty politicking and it disappoints me that BH seems to have taken this route.

 

Very disappointed.

 

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.

Edited February 13, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[rbr 1,247]

Aye an FF is an open forum

 

I cannot disagree with that, he banned me buts it's his forum.

 

Thats the problem , its meant to be a Rangers forum , first and foremost ,

 

*edited bf*... refrain from personal insults

 

, I was slaughtered on there for a post years ago about CW , yet I have /had emails and phone calls and texts from, then .RST board members telling me I was right and apologizing for what happened . But guess what , not one had the guts to pull him up and publicly apologize , or rather apologize via FF

Edited February 13, 2016 by blueflag