RST AGM Tomorrow

[maineflyer 0]

And there we are Frankie.

 

You tell me now please why on here I am criticised for not taking what is said about the trust at face value when I most certainly dont take what is said by them about others at face value? Should I get pages of people telling me how bad this place, VB and RM are (and believe me, there WOULD be pages and pages on FF) and just accept it all as true? I would seriously need to be bi-polar to use here and FF it that was the case.

 

People here, and I mean this as no fighting stance, merely an observation, are saying that I should have some courage of conviction and draw conclusions from what is said about the trust. That is fine but why should I not in turn have some courage in my convictions and believe what is written over there? Why should one side by default be 'chosen' over the other?

 

This, from a neutrals point is easier and easier to see through I'm afraid. Yes, the things levelled at the trust look bad. Equally though, the things levelled BY the trust look bad. Each has the same amount of conviction from the accuser, each side is pretty clearly in a trench. One side flings out 'financial irregularities' and it is hit back with a big stick that has 'fraud' written down the side.

 

 

You know for a cast iron fact that I have not taken anything said to me about yourself at face value, the fact I have asked you personally for help with several things now should bear testimony to that. I genuinely dont understand how you can write up a list of accusations made by the trust and write it off completely while almost demanding that I see how bad the trust are with your own list.

 

Excluding anyone specific here, it looks like two sides who are just as bad as each other and for all the 'they did this' and 'they did that', nobody actually seems to give a shit that their own actions should be at the front of their minds and if we all took some individual responsibility things amongst the support might be a little better (they might not, granted, but you never know)

 

I dont doubt for a second that certain members of the trust board have done some pretty bad things. By the same token, I dont doubt that the trust's opposition have done some bad things. I simply dont see this as a 'black and white', 'they are wrong we are right issue'. There is fault on every side here and the dangerous road is not the one I am walking here, it is the path that leads to out-right hostility; that path, as has been proven for years on end, is pretty much impossible to back-track along and it has few exits.

 

reading back through this post I could see it coming over as aggressive towards you or other posters here. That is not the intention at all.

 

So, other than clinging with determination to your seat on the fence of personal convictions, what exactly are your intentions here ... to be hailed as fair-minded, revered by your peers as the man who saw both sides, a pillar of probity amongst all these radicals?

 

You've never been guilty of hiding in the shadows or shunning publicity so it's a little stretched to see what looks like an inability to weigh up and judge such polarized positions. You cannot expect to get away with an argument that says everything is equally good, equally bad, equally east, equally west, equally grey - and no one should attempt to offer any opinion that might compromise your assertion that the middle is neither one end of the seesaw nor the other. Why the mock allofness?

 

Isn't is just possible that beyond your indecision lies a place where one side IS more wrong than right ... and that those who have the eyes to see it could be justified in confirming it by description?

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

So, other than clinging with determination to your seat on the fence of personal convictions, what exactly are your intentions here ... to be hailed as fair-minded, revered by your peers as the man who saw both sides, a pillar of probity amongst all these radicals?

 

Go back to my first appearance and you will see exactly what I am doing here. Questions were raised and answered on FF. On here the questions were raised but the answers not seen. I copied an answer here and added an opinion that it looked to be fair enough. Since then, and despite my better judgement, I have allowed myself to get involved which is entirely my mistake; I like a good debate and very often end up answering points when common sense would be to step away. It is an undoubted failing on my part.

 

You've never been guilty of hiding in the shadows or shunning publicity so it's a little stretched to see what looks like an inability to weigh up and judge such polarized positions. You cannot expect to get away with an argument that says everything is equally good, equally bad, equally east, equally west, equally grey - and no one should attempt to offer any opinion that might compromise your assertion that the middle is neither one end of the seesaw nor the other. Why the mock allofness?

 

there is NO inability to weigh up polarized opinions. I am weighing them up and seeing, very clearly, two sides hellbent on fucking each other up the behind. For EVERY and I mean literally EVERY allegation thrown one way, there is one coming back and without the personal knowledge it is impossible to make fair or accurate assumptions. That means that ANY intelligent person has to judge each case on it's own merits. That means, basically that what I have said about MD's answer stands. Yes, it is irregular, but yes it is a fair enough response. That is my opinion of that matter on it's own merit. I cant judge him on that instance by referring to past mistakes because I simply dont know what is true and what is false in the sea of accusations. You are more than smart enough to grasp that.

 

Isn't is just possible that beyond your indecision lies a place where one side IS more wrong than right ... and that those who have the eyes to see it could be justified in confirming it by description?

 

 

Of course. And the minute someone actually says 'X did this, here it is with any basic evidence and it proves that...' then great, minds can be made up. While you have people on FF making wild allegations and people on RM making wild allegations (drug deals and personal threats from MD to DE and vice versa) then just how can ANY fair minded person make a hard and fast judgement?

 

I spend more time on FF than anywhere and make no appology for it. That means that I see far more in the way of shit flung out than shit flung in. By rights, YOUR demands would have me see here and elsewhere as 'in the wrong' rather than judging them on what I see.

 

 

Until people get away from the mantra of 'x is bad, y is good' we are stuck because people will only see that.

 

The trust IS failing, there is no doubt about it at all. The trust is failing in part because people within it are making bad calls and people without it are determined to see it fail. That is a fact. The trust does not always need to fail.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

With respect mate, I'm not expecting anyone to take what I say at as true. People can make up their own minds there and I appreciate you've judged me fairly in the past in that regard which tells me a lot as well.

 

I also think the Rangers support are more than capable of reading the threads we've seen across the community over the last day or two and seeing what is happening here. Then, when you put that next to what seems to be a failing Trust it makes their claims all the more unlikely.

 

To be clear, I'm not professing anyone to be perfect. I've admitted my failings many times and I've criticised both sides of the debate for being less than forthright.

 

However, I'm also not going to stand by and allow people elsewhere to post stuff about myself and others without one single piece of evidence. Not one. Especially when I offer nothing but constructive debate myself - as well as opportunities for reconciliation.

 

The evidence that is available is that a current Trust board member is playing fast and loose with the organisation's accounting principles. Add to that to his previous behaviour (such as making unsubstantiated posts like I've mentioned above) then I'm more than comfortable that the neutral you mention will make the correct judgement.

 

Again, I don't expect to be believed by everyone but I will not apologise or hide from those who wish to deflect from their own failings.

 

Sorry, missed it in the page turn...

 

I wouldnt expect you to accept people saying things about you with no reply and you absolutely have a right to defend yourself. What has been said on FF is unacceptable, completely and utterly unacceptable infact. I am not seeing overly much in the way of substanciated claims from this end though. Yes, the financial irrgularites are agreed as just that, the matter has been resolved, MD did not in any way benefit personally and that is that. The rest of it is made up of completely unsubstanciated rumour.

 

One area that I will say unequivocably the FF/trust 'side' were wrong last night is their reaction to the questions. A simple answer to each and a debate on those answers would have served FAR better than throwing out their own wee bombs. That is not something I agree with, think is helpful or constructive and it is certainly only ever going to lead to one place, here.

[Frankie 8,569]

Sorry, missed it in the page turn...

 

I wouldnt expect you to accept people saying things about you with no reply and you absolutely have a right to defend yourself. What has been said on FF is unacceptable, completely and utterly unacceptable infact. I am not seeing overly much in the way of substanciated claims from this end though. Yes, the financial irrgularites are agreed as just that, the matter has been resolved, MD did not in any way benefit personally and that is that. The rest of it is made up of completely unsubstanciated rumour.

 

One area that I will say unequivocably the FF/trust 'side' were wrong last night is their reaction to the questions. A simple answer to each and a debate on those answers would have served FAR better than throwing out their own wee bombs. That is not something I agree with, think is helpful or constructive and it is certainly only ever going to lead to one place, here.

 

Again, I don't disagree and think you are being fair enough in your analysis of an undesirable situation.

 

However, the allegation about MD withholding club meeting details so he could post it on FF first was made on that very forum by a recently resigned board member, has not been removed (to my knowledge) and the person who posted it still posts easily enough as well. If that accusation wasn't true, I doubt it or the poster would still be there.

 

Add to that his disrespect of the Trust's accounts and comments about other people then the guy is about as credible as Graham Spiers. He is no leader and should hold no responsibility for any position which demands our trust.

 

By condoning this, the Trust only set themselves up for further problems. No-one wins out of that.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Again, I don't disagree and think you are being fair enough in your analysis of an undesirable situation.

 

However, the allegation about MD withholding club meeting details so he could post it on FF first was made on that very forum by a recently resigned board member, has not been removed (to my knowledge) and the person who posted it still posts easily enough as well. If that accusation wasn't true, I doubt it or the poster would still be there.

 

Add to that his disrespect of the Trust's accounts and comments about other people then the guy is about as credible as Graham Spiers. He is no leader and should hold no responsibility for any position which demands our trust.

 

By condoning this, the Trust only set themselves up for further problems. No-one wins out of that.

 

Didnt see it. could you give the name so i can search? sounds like interesting reading

[Frankie 8,569]

It was posted by DylanGer a few months back - of which he confirmed on RM last night....

 

He visits here occasionally so he may come on to discuss himself.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Ahh, know him and like him. Cant believe I missed that though. Might have been drunk.

[boss 0]

Yes, the financial irrgularites are agreed as just that, the matter has been resolved, MD did not in any way benefit personally and that is that.

 

No, that is not that just because you say so.

 

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the financial gain made from the notional interest on the zero percent debt outstanding to the Bank of RST?

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

No, that is not that just because you say so.

 

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the financial gain made from the notional interest on the zero percent debt outstanding to the Bank of RST?

 

not at all. That means that the trust 'lost' the interest. He didnt gain the interest because he didnt take cash out, just underwrote debt. ergo, he didnt gain. If he had borrowed money off them and paid it back slowly, he would have gained. He didnt take anything but guaranteed to pay money in on behalf of others.

 

 

If you said the trust lost you would be right. saying he 'gained' is plainly wrong.

[maineflyer 0]

No, that is not that just because you say so.

 

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the financial gain made from the notional interest on the zero percent debt outstanding to the Bank of RST?

Since these forums are all about expressing opinion, I'd like to express my opinion that Northampton Loyalist is playing a very dangerous game, proposing as he does to promote fair-mindedness while simultaneously massaging certain facts to suit what obviously nothing more fair-minded than his own inherent bias. Personally, I find something fundamentally suspicious when people suppress opinion in favourite of self-image, only to reveal themselves in what they don't say. I believe this is a game of drawing the sting of reasonable accusation by asserting an apparently even more reasonable "faults on both sides". Something doesn't quite add up, despite the amount of effort employed.

 

Of course I'm just an old cynic, eh?

Edited September 23, 2010 by maineflyer