RST AGM Tomorrow

[Frankie 8,565]

just for the record, the dignity word was yours.

 

Yes but I said I preferred stuff was done with dignity not that it was necessarily a rule I lived by...

 

Anyway, let's move onto the here and now. When will the Trust release minutes of the AGM and/or official comment on the unacceptable behaviour of their office-bearers?

[Zappa 0]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUBAx8jbYNs&feature=related]YouTube - Monty Python - Life of Brian - PFJ Union meeting[/ame]

 

.........................................................................................

[maineflyer 0]

Yes but is that us or them........? :D:D

[Zappa 0]

Yes but is that us or them........? :D:D

.

This one clears it up perfectly!

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA&NR=1]YouTube - Life Of Brian PFJ meeting to take action[/ame]

[maineflyer 0]

It's us then!

[Zappa 0]

It's us then!

.

Conclude whatever you like. The Python sketches are not only hilarious, but incredibly appropriate. Brittish comedy at it's finest.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

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.

 

 

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.

[andy steel 0]

Non RST member asks - this �£80k's worth of shares: how are they controlled, who decides how and when they are sold/used in votes?

[Frankie 8,565]

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.

 

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.

[Bluedell 5,627]

Non RST member asks - this �£80k's worth of shares: how are they controlled, who decides how and when they are sold/used in votes?

 

There are 2 issues.

 

1. �£80K of cash waiting to be invested into the club.

 

2. �£40K+ of shares issued. They are in the RST's name at the moment and held in trust for the Gersave members. A request to the RST would result in them be transferred to the member directly. They would not be sold without the member's authorisation. Their use in vots is currently irrelevant given Murray holding over 90% of the shares.