Rangers First board candidates

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I beg to differ I am entirely correct about what you did bh.

 

I beg to differ I am entirely correct about what you did bh.[/QU

From the man himself

 

........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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Bearman 9]

Forlan Sister.

 

Have you seen any work action towards facilities for the disabled since King took over? I know from reading your previous posts that Ibrox Stadium hadn't moved into the 21st century up to the last time you mentioned this concern.

 

Are moves in place? Only asking because it's something, like yourself ,I feel is important.

[plgsarmy 111]

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.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

[plgsarmy 111]

 

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.

 

Alan, it wasn't so much what you did (although I think you were out of order). It was that you went online and bragged about what you did. You are your own worst enemy.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Forlan Sister.

 

Have you seen any work action towards facilities for the disabled since King took over? I know from reading your previous posts that Ibrox Stadium hadn't moved into the 21st century up to the last time you mentioned this concern.

 

Are moves in place? Only asking because it's something, like yourself ,I feel is important.

 

Yes, there have been regular meetings with under the auspices of the Disability Matters Group which consists of Club officials and representatives of disabled fans ( myself included) both physically disabled and mentally disabled.

 

Progress has been made and a statement will be made in due course (hopefully soon) laying out a pathway forward, however it must be stressed there is no magic wand to be waved and it will take some time to get where we need to be.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

FS

We’d agreed a process where we’d rank our first, second and third preferences

 

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.

Edited February 13, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

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?

Edited February 13, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

Alan, it wasn't so much what you did (although I think you were out of order). It was that you went online and bragged about what you did. You are your own worst enemy.

 

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.

[Bearman 9]

BH, I have no idea who you are except that your name is Alan Harris...you certainly put your head above the parapet which is either commendable or downright stupid.

 

It's a political thing...crazy man! Politics and football don't mix for me. I only see 11 blue jerseys, that's all I ever care about when it comes to the Rangers.

 

PS: White shorts and black & red socks tooooo....Sorry shouldn't have posted this in here...wrong thread!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

Edited February 13, 2016 by BrahimHemdani