RST AGM Tomorrow

[Frankie 8,569]

He just forgot , but now he's remembered and paid it all back , simples , anyone could do it and thet are all pals after all , but why does it always seem to happen to him , he must be very unfortunate or .............

 

Quite frankly it is unacceptable and coupled with other recent allegations and his general behaviour his position must surely be untenable?

[rbr 1,256]

I doubt he will mind this being posted as it ws said in open forum over there....

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the risk of being called a lickspittle, that sounds reasonable enough and if he has simply underwritten RST 'debts' and paid them over time, there is some irregularity but not for personal gain (the opposite, if anything).

 

I dont know his or the trusts financial information and I agree that it is probably highly irregular, but from the above it doesnt look like he took anything at all out of the coffers and seemingly paid money in instead.

 

 

You are certainly no lickspittle mate , but some over on �£�£ need to get their noses surgically removed from his arse and pronto , as for his answers if he told me tomorrow was Thursday it would probably cost me a �£5

[Frankie 8,569]

 

At the risk of being called a lickspittle, that sounds reasonable enough and if he has simply underwritten RST 'debts' and paid them over time, there is some irregularity but not for personal gain (the opposite, if anything).

 

I dont know his or the trusts financial information and I agree that it is probably highly irregular, but from the above it doesnt look like he took anything at all out of the coffers and seemingly paid money in instead.

 

No-one will be called names on here and since I'm no expert I'd certainly be the last one to level allegations with any sincerity.

 

However, it is extremely irregular as you put it and given the time period and sums of money involved, also unacceptable.

 

Add in this stuff about withholding information from board members (something he accuses others of regularly) and lies about former colleagues then I'm astonished he can keep a straight face. Indeed, his expression only changes when he insults the board member who has apparently brought this to everyone's attention.

 

How can the Trust expect to be taken seriously by anyone (least of all the club) with this nonsense surrounding them at every turn?

[rbr 1,256]

Quite frankly it is unacceptable and coupled with other recent allegations and his general behaviour his position must surely be untenable?

 

I wont be holding my breath , and why as I previously alluded does it always happen to him ,he's either very unfortunate or ..............

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

You are certainly no lickspittle mate , but some over on �£�£ need to get their noses surgically removed from his arse and pronto , as for his answers if he told me tomorrow was Thursday it would probably cost me a �£5

 

I have spent all day in a big row with Deedle, I doubt he counts me as a trust fanboy at all

 

I dont know if it is a personal failing on my part, but he was asked a question regarding financial information and gave an answer that covers it comprehensively. the question originated from a place that, to put it mildly, has no time for him. The answer was almost irrelivant I think because whatever he said, the mud had been thrown and would stick where it landed in the eyes of some.

 

Personally, and I will make no bones about it, I have met MD several times and despite some fundamental differences of opinion I have found him to be a decent chap. I certainly have no reason myself to doubt his explanation and if I factor in the fact that internecine wars seem to be the norm and that political gain on either side is often more important than questions actually being answered, I will be doubtful that he tried a fast one in this instance.

[Frankie 8,569]

I wont be holding my breath , and why as I previously alluded does it always happen to him ,he's either very unfortunate or ..............

 

I'd like to hear what PLG and the rest of the Trust board have to say officially on this matter.

[craig 5,199]

I can't blame TB for being unclear as to what was happening given the speed that the re-elections went through and the whole process was unsatisfactory.

 

1. The 8 names were read out extremely quickly and I doubt anyone on the audience could repeat who was up for election/re-election.

 

2. There was no explanation of who the new board member was, as I pointed out at the time.

 

3. I believe that not giving the meeting the chance to vote on people individually is incorrect, despite the fact that the meeting voted to allow it.

 

4. The meeting was asked to vote if it was OK to allow the vote to cover all 8 people. This was passed. The voting then stopped at that point. My interpretation was that the vote was in respect of the method of voting only and there was never a vote actually electing/re-electing the people concerned, or did I miss something?

 

 

 

 

 

How did the chairman of the meeting know that the statement was not in relation to the reports of the Secretary and Treasurer?

 

Was he told that he could speak later? I didn't catch that, although it was difficult to hear everything that the chairman was saying at that point.

 

Points one through 4 would indicate to me people who simply dont know how an AGM is supposed to function.

 

An en masse vote for election of Board members is naive in my opinion, especially when you are looking at a diverse spectrum of potential candidates in a situation where the shareholders likely dont know some, if not all, of them.

 

My company, for instance, have 56 shareholders - most all of them know each other - yet the board is elected individually on an annual basis, even though we know with almost complete assurance, who will and who wont be successful.

 

With the RST's diversity of membership an en bloc vote is incorrect in my opinion (unless a certain number of positions need to be filled and those up for election are the required minimum)

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

No-one will be called names on here and since I'm no expert I'd certainly be the last one to level allegations with any sincerity.

 

However, it is extremely irregular as you put it and given the time period and sums of money involved, also unacceptable.

 

Add in this stuff about withholding information from board members (something he accuses others of regularly) and lies about former colleagues then I'm astonished he can keep a straight face. Indeed, his expression only changes when he insults the board member who has apparently brought this to everyone's attention.

 

How can the Trust expect to be taken seriously by anyone (least of all the club) with this nonsense surrounding them at every turn?

I am not comfortable defending him or anyone here. Appart from anything else it is not my place. I was passing on what he said and added an opinion.

 

The trust is a small organisation and I dont see it as hugely important that if functions need paid for and people are slow getting cash in one person under-writes it, particularly if said person is not pocketing cash and if the function would have been at risk had it not happened.

 

 

that said, if you want to run a professional organisation, you need to act professionally and without knowing the details it certainly looks irregular.

[Frankie 8,569]

I have spent all day in a big row with Deedle, I doubt he counts me as a trust fanboy at all

 

I dont know if it is a personal failing on my part, but he was asked a question regarding financial information and gave an answer that covers it comprehensively. the question originated from a place that, to put it mildly, has no time for him. The answer was almost irrelivant I think because whatever he said, the mud had been thrown and would stick where it landed in the eyes of some.

 

Personally, and I will make no bones about it, I have met MD several times and despite some fundamental differences of opinion I have found him to be a decent chap. I certainly have no reason myself to doubt his explanation and if I factor in the fact that internecine wars seem to be the norm and that political gain on either side is often more important than questions actually being answered, I will be doubtful that he tried a fast one in this instance.

 

You think it is OK for someone to request �£2700 of services and pay it back over two years without making the situation clear in the organisation's accounts. Then only commenting when this information drifted out via other means.

 

To be clear, unlike Mark Dingwall who I did consider a decent chap before I seen another side of him, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately underhand financial cheating. However, others may not be so kind when they juxtapose this issue with the lies and slurs he spreads about others while being guilty of the very same himself.

 

And he certainly wouldn't be so gracious himself.

[rbr 1,256]

I have spent all day in a big row with Deedle, I doubt he counts me as a trust fanboy at all

 

I dont know if it is a personal failing on my part, but he was asked a question regarding financial information and gave an answer that covers it comprehensively. the question originated from a place that, to put it mildly, has no time for him. The answer was almost irrelivant I think because whatever he said, the mud had been thrown and would stick where it landed in the eyes of some.

 

Personally, and I will make no bones about it, I have met MD several times and despite some fundamental differences of opinion I have found him to be a decent chap. I certainly have no reason myself to doubt his explanation and if I factor in the fact that internecine wars seem to be the norm and that political gain on either side is often more important than questions actually being answered, I will be doubtful that he tried a fast one in this instance.

 

I have had many run ins with Deedle especially about the night of the long knives when the last RST board were slaughtered , sorry removed ,sorry resigned , he is a first class tit and one of MD's biggest supporters , as for MD being a decent chap , he may well be but it's always him , no one is that unfortunate.

 

Also I dont accept his answer , a few weeks ok , a couple of months maybe pushing it , two years your having a laugh and these are audited accounts , this from a guy who is quick enough to spread rumours about past RST board members , pathetic