RST AGM Tomorrow

[bmck 117]

I am trying to explain that there are two sides to every story and while FF is certainly the stomping ground of one side, other sites can be polarized against them. While everyone is intent on attacking/defending then days/weeks/months and years go by with the club getting absolutely nowhere and the support going backwards.

 

Mate, this sounds nicer than it is. I don't think what people really need so much as the ability to see two sides of a coin, especially here, as the need for a certain opinion. We have loads of devil's advocate's advocate and everyone I know is able to keep themselves from reactionary polarisation. The ability to come to firm conclusions that are nonetheless open to change is just as important when the situation demands it, especially if people care about the RST as many do here. That the RST felt itself positioned to internal financial jiggery pokery with funds, and sufficiently comfortable to never actually note it down anywhere for the people to whom their accountable, and for it only to be revealed owing to their spite towards each other and inability to present a united front to me is sufficient to come to a fairly firm conclusion. That it was all done in good faith I don't doubt, that it was never not going to be paid back I don't doubt, that there's a nice story in which no-one is actually a Baddy I don't doubt, but there's no escaping that there's no version of the story where it's not representative of an organisation that's incompetent and dysfuctional, and is so more as a rule than an exception. The RST is nothing like transparent. They have loads of nice people as board members - the few that come here from time to time to address the occasional thing seem nice, and I don't doubt the ones that don't are likewise good bears, but that doesn't make them good leaders of men. When reasonable people - people with a history of looking on both sides - come to a firm conclusions, with fairness taking your approach of a tentative foot in both camps is the quickest way to going backwards.

[Frankie 8,230]

My point is that continuing to describe and analyse the problem is a poor substitute for changing it. There's an unfortunate tendency sometimes to understate the importance of catalysing change and to see worth only in terms of style. The language used above to diminish the importance and consequence of the "loaded questions" was unnecessary and unfortunate. You may not feel they were best constructed but far more was achieved in the asking of them than by all the rest of the considered debaters put together.

 

I accept that and I certainly don't think the questions were wrong to ask. Certainly the reaction has been most revealing.

 

Here are just five examples that are commonly posted on FF and have appeared as recently as yesterday when they are confronted with the occasional piece of constructive criticism:

 

1. Past board members had secret meetings with the club and did not report back. Malicious lies.

 

2. Past board members deliberately sold fake merchandise to the Trust. Malicious lies.

 

3. Past board members had 'freebies and didn't declare them'. Malicious lies.

 

4. Past board members lied about the credible chance of a supporter on the board. Malicious lies.

 

5. The past Trust chairman is now Andrew Ellis' stockbroker. Malicious lies.

 

 

Now, these lies weren't posted by some random poster but by current and former board members including Mark Dingwall himself. They are ludicrous, unsubstantiated and totally without foundation and is shown when anyone asks them to prove their nonsense. I also know for a fact that other board members cringe when they read such posts because they know the allegations are untrue and make the Trust look stupid.

 

Add in this new completely irregular financial situation about thousands of pounds being owed over two years (not a few days, weeks or months) and which were only paid back because of the diligence of another still-serving board member who is also now bizarrely being ridiculed by these same people then an unfortunate picture is appearing.

 

Add in the hypocrisy about meetings with the club when the same person withholds information so his message-board can benefit from the minutes first, then we're not talking about honest mistakes but an ongoing list of poor behaviour that should be unacceptable to any sensible individual.

 

All of this comes from constructive criticism of an organisation that is supposed to be leading us. That on it own may not be enough to invoke real change so I appreciate stronger, more direct action may be necessary.

 

As always, despite the malicious lies above, I'm someone who prefers everyone is done with dignity. But when you have Trust board members stirring the pot like they have above, I wouldn't blame anyone for adopting a strategy they usually wouldn't advocate.

[Frankie 8,230]

Mate, this sounds nicer than it is. I don't think what people really need so much as the ability to see two sides of a coin, especially here, as the need for a certain opinion. We have loads of devil's advocate's advocate and everyone I know is able to keep themselves from reactionary polarisation. The ability to come to firm conclusions that are nonetheless open to change is just as important when the situation demands it, especially if people care about the RST as many do here. That the RST felt itself positioned to internal financial jiggery pokery with funds, and sufficiently comfortable to never actually note it down anywhere for the people to whom their accountable, and for it only to be revealed owing to their spite towards each other and inability to present a united front to me is sufficient to come to a fairly firm conclusion. That it was all done in good faith I don't doubt, that it was never not going to be paid back I don't doubt, that there's a nice story in which no-one is actually a Baddy I don't doubt, but there's no escaping that there's no version of the story where it's not representative of an organisation that's incompetent and dysfuctional, and is so more as a rule than an exception. The RST is nothing like transparent. They have loads of nice people as board members - the few that come here from time to time to address the occasional thing seem nice, and I don't doubt the ones that don't are likewise good bears, but that doesn't make them good leaders of men. When reasonable people - people with a history of looking on both sides - come to a firm conclusions, with fairness taking your approach of a tentative foot in both camps is the quickest way to going backwards.

 

One of the best posts I've read on this issue.

[maineflyer 0]

I accept that and I certainly don't think the questions were wrong to ask. Certainly the reaction has been most revealing.

 

Here are just five examples that are commonly posted on FF and have appeared as recently as yesterday when they are confronted with the occasional piece of constructive criticism:

 

1. Past board members had secret meetings with the club and did not report back. Malicious lies.

 

2. Past board members deliberately sold fake merchandise to the Trust. Malicious lies.

 

3. Past board members had 'freebies and didn't declare them'. Malicious lies.

 

4. Past board members lied about the credible chance of a supporter on the board. Malicious lies.

 

5. The past Trust chairman is now Andrew Ellis' stockbroker. Malicious lies.

 

 

Now, these lies weren't posted by some random poster but by current and former board members including Mark Dingwall himself. They are ludicrous, unsubstantiated and totally without foundation and is shown when anyone asks them to prove their nonsense. I also know for a fact that other board members cringe when they read such posts because they know the allegations are untrue and make the Trust look stupid.

 

Add in this new completely irregular financial situation about thousands of pounds being owed over two years (not a few days, weeks or months) and which were only paid back because of the diligence of another still-serving board member who is also now bizarrely being ridiculed by these same people then an unfortunate picture is appearing.

 

Add in the hypocrisy about meetings with the club when the same person withholds information so his message-board can benefit from the minutes first, then we're not talking about honest mistakes but an ongoing list of poor behaviour that should be unacceptable to any sensible individual.

 

All of this comes from constructive criticism of an organisation that is supposed to be leading us. That on it own may not be enough to invoke real change so I appreciate stronger, more direct action may be necessary.

 

As always, despite the malicious lies above, I'm someone who prefers everyone is done with dignity. But when you have Trust board members stirring the pot like they have above, I wouldn't blame anyone for adopting a strategy they usually wouldn't advocate.

 

I've seen these protestations and more from the RST elite. They only reveal themselves in this way because someone took thevtime to gather information and openly asked what were always intended to be loaded questions. It was the public asking of those questions on VB, RM and FF that has given the RST something to answer and finally revealed the corruption going on.

 

Northampton Loyalist claims these questions were posed without any interest in the answers, simply to cause trouble for the RST. This is rubbish and shows how little people like NL actually know about what's going on around them. The guys from VB knew damned well what the answers were before they asked those quesestions and asked them precisely because they care about the RST. If NL and others who cluster around the action had more intent to address problems rather than describe them, the RST would never have sunk to the current squalid mess. There's an opportunity here and now to end this shambles but not if people become deflected into a debate about style over substance.

[Frankie 8,230]

Nobody is deflecting from anything.

 

The answer is clear for the Trust and, as I wrote yesterday, this is an opportunity for them to show regret for past actions and by doing so they can move forward into a new era.

 

The resignation of the chairman may help. The resignation of Mark Dingwall will do so also. I'm sure people on every forum (and the RST board) will agree with that inevitable conclusion.

[chilledbear 16]

Perhaps I am being simple minded, but if the Trust was worth fighting for, and the allegations against former board members were untrue, why did they resign, why not stay and fight?

[Frankie 8,230]

Perhaps I am being simple minded, but if the Trust was worth fighting for, and the allegations against former board members were untrue, why did they resign, why not stay and fight?

 

It's a fair point you know and perhaps leaving was a mistake.

 

However, after what happened there was no way a working relationship could continue so I certainly felt unable to work with people who didn't trust their colleagues.

 

This is my own personal opinion obviously.

[maineflyer 0]

Perhaps I am being simple minded, but if the Trust was worth fighting for, and the allegations against former board members were untrue, why did they resign, why not stay and fight?

 

Understandable question to raise but I'd suggest (nothing more) that it wasn't their leaving that deprived them of their defence but their silence or muted protest after leaving. A great deal more could and should have been said by those that left and I was always convinced their cautious approach only served to bolster those they could not agreed with. That's when a number of good people decided that style was more important than results and have spent the intervening period trying to justify their so-called dignity.

 

However it's more relevant what they do today and tomorrow and thankfully, at least some of them seem to have found a voice at last.

[Frankie 8,230]

Understandable question to raise but I'd suggest (nothing more) that it wasn't their leaving that deprived them of their defence but their silence or muted protest after leaving. A great deal more could and should have been said by those that left and I was always convinced their cautious approach only served to bolster those they could not agreed with. That's when a number of good people decided that style was more important than results and have spent the intervening period trying to justify their so-called dignity.

 

However it's more relevant what they do today and tomorrow and thankfully, at least some of them seem to have found a voice at last.

 

Those that resigned (including myself) did so by making a clear statement available to all and by taking a full part in the debate afterwards.

 

Sure it may not have made everyone happy but people see things in different ways. It certainly wasn't done for style or dignity reasons but how we all felt personally at the time.

 

Despite the rantings of some elsewhere, I always hoped those that were left (and any new blood) would have accepted our reasons, examined what went wrong, admitted their part and used the experience to improve the organisation.

 

That hasn't happened and the continual and unacceptable behaviour of those tasked with our trust should be exposed , no matter our association now.

[maineflyer 0]

Those that resigned (including myself) did so by making a clear statement available to all and by taking a full part in the debate afterwards.

 

Sure it may not have made everyone happy but people see things in different ways. It certainly wasn't done for style or dignity reasons but how we all felt personally at the time.

 

Despite the rantings of some elsewhere, I always hoped those that were left (and any new blood) would have accepted our reasons, examined what went wrong, admitted their part and used the experience to improve the organisation.

 

That hasn't happened and the continual and unacceptable behaviour of those tasked with our trust should be exposed , no matter our association now.

 

Yeah, whatever, just glad you've caught up at last. and, just for the record, the dignity word was yours.