The financial affairs of the RST

[wabashcannonball 0]

I can imagine that you hope that things will be sorted out without the involvement of the law. We sometimes act on our feelings and not what is written in the book.

 

What I hope is what I always hope, that truth prevails, but I am long enough in the tooth to know that is not always the case, we had enough misinformation in the Ellis debacle to fill Britannica.

 

It is surely time to draw a line under this constant internecine tit for tat, all it does is give selik punters a good laugh at our expense, and while we are at it bury the rst permanently.

 

And the question to the OP stands.

[Guest Dylanger]

So we can cut to the chase. is the OP alleging criminal malpractice by anyone involved in the accounting process, or transactions made or done by board members, if so, has he reported this to the relevant authorities, fiduciary or constabulary.

 

If not, what is the hulaballo about, digging a big hole and burying this sorry circus would be a good idea, unless of course the above is relevant, in which case the full Majesty of the law is required.

 

I'm not going to speak from him but I'll give you my interpretation of what he has said. The auditors have changed positions several times, once on the basis of his comments and then latterly after legal advice was given. He indicates that it has been suggested the legal advice was set up by the auditors and that the finished audit report indicates no wrong doing although in a wider sense they seem to have highlighted a number of poor practises.

[wabashcannonball 0]

FFS poor practises are a fact of financial life, the banks "poor" practises cost the taxpayer zillions and not a single fekker done porridge, so, do you actually know what the OP is alleging/saying or just surmising, a very risky path to take in all things Rangers, just ask the Mint.

[plgsarmy 111]

I believe it is time that someone clarified exactly what has been going on with the financial affairs of Rangers Supporters Trust (RST).

 

The Board of RST had an opportunity to make full disclosure of the matters that I will explain below in the Accounts or at the AGM last Sunday, 19 September 2010. They failed to take either of these opportunities.

 

I was elected to the Board of RST at the 2009 AGM and appointed as Secretary on 13 February 2010. I resigned as Secretary on 12 August 2010. I remain a member of the Board.

 

It is the Secretary�s duty to sign the Accounts on behalf of the Board. I refused to sign the Accounts for the year ended 5 April 2010.

 

I had prepared a statement to read at the AGM but the Acting Chair refused to let me read it out. I asked RST to publish that statement on Thursday of this past week but they refused because the final version of the auditor�s management letter differs from the one quoted in my statement.

 

I have kept my own counsel on these matters since the AGM but now feel compelled to make these matters known because I consider it my duty as a Director:

 

1. To explain to the members what happened to their money.

 

2. To clarify and correct some ambiguous and inaccurate comments that the current Treasurer, Christine Somerville (plgsarmy) has made on this web site.

 

3. To explain why I resigned as Secretary.

 

Other than Christine I do not know the identity of anyone on this site. The only reason that I am posting this statement on this site is that last Tuesday a friend drew my attention to the thread about the RST AGM. Since then I have become increasingly frustrated by the speculation surrounding these events and my role in them. As RST have refused to publish my statement I will publish it on a separate thread. This will explain the reason for my resignation as Secretary. However you may be interested in the background to these events.

 

At a meeting with the auditors that I attended on 4 August 2010 along with the Treasurer, Christine Somerville and the Treasurer elect, Alison Mueller, Christine stated that sometime between September and November 2008, two cheques were issued to RST by followfollow.com totalling �£2,690. These cheques bounced. The monies were not fully repaid (bar �£30 still outstanding at the financial year end) until March 2010. This means that followfollow.com had a free loan of Trust monies for the best part of 18 months.

 

Christine has stated in a post on this web site ââ?¬Å?it was paid off, the majority a few months laterââ?¬Â. This would depend on your definition of ââ?¬Å?a few monthsââ?¬Â. In fact none of the debt had been paid off by 5 April 2010.

 

Christine has also stated in another post on this web site ââ?¬Å?However, to be clear, this was not a loan, interest free or otherwise. Knowing the circumstances, our auditors were very clear about that.ââ?¬Â Christine is mistaken. The auditors categorised the debt as a loan in their management letter of 10 August 2010 and did so again (twice) when RST put my AGM statement to them this week. The auditors are correct.

 

In fact the first draft of the Auditor�s management letter issued on 9 August 2010 referred only to:

 

� Losses on functions.

 

� Lack of control over expenditure.

 

� Failure to maintain an up to date share register.

 

In my opinion as Secretary the debt gave rise to breaches of Rule 6 regarding the application of our profits and Rules 74 & 75 which refer to conflicts of material financial interest.

 

In the circumstances, I was very surprised that the auditors had not even mentioned the debt and other important matters in their letter so I sent them an email on 9 August 2010 in which I reminded them of:

 

"� Income & Expenditure being received and paid by outside organisations e.g. Erskine Appeal, Sam English Committee, Follow Follow.

 

� The high number of cash transactions and instances where cash income is not banked at all but used to make payments.

 

� The difficulty of allocating income from incomplete records - all income should be banked by the Treasurer in my opinion.

 

� The debt from unpaid cheques last year, which as far as I can understand arose from some combination of the first two factors mentioned above, which means that there were breaches of Rule 6, 74 & 75 at least until the debt(s) were cleared this year."

 

I copied this email to Christine and Alison and neither responded to me.

 

The auditors stated that they were happy to include the additional points and revised their draft to include comments on all these matters as set out in the Statement that I was not allowed to read at the AGM. I attached a copy of the auditor�s revised draft to the resignation email that I sent to all members of the Board on 12 August 2010.

 

On Thursday last, the Interim Secretary advised me that subsequently the auditors dropped the reference to the loan in the final version of their letter based on the legal advice received by the Board. I have asked for sight of the legal advice but this has not been forthcoming. They also dropped all references to the cash transactions; no explanation has been given for that, so one can only speculate as to the reasons for the auditors actions in that respect.

 

It should be noted that the Auditor�s Report issued with the Accounts states that in their opinion the financial statements give a true and fair view of the Society�s affairs as at 5 April 2010.

 

I hope I have clarified these matters but I will do my best to answer any further questions that arise. There are some other inaccuracies and questions posed in the RST AGM thread that I will try to answer as well.

 

Alan S Harris

26 September 2010.

 

Alan, I'm surprised that for someone normally so pedantic that your posted is littered with so many inaccuracies. I have highlighted the ones I know to be inaccurate and there are other parts when you refer to the auditors and loans that I am not aware of but I will certainly find out.

 

Just a few questions;

 

1) If you had 'kept your own counsel', why has this been all over the Internet since last Tuesday?

2) You stated at the AGM that you wanted to say why you resigned as Secretary. You were told that the section was dealing with the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports only. It was certainly not clear from the stage whether or not you said anything else. I only heard you say okay. You know the format of the AGM and any questions can be asked at this time yet you chose to leave.

3) You've contadicted youself by saying it was not paid off until March 2010 and then say none of the debt had been paid off by 5 April 2010. You have a speadsheet I sent you of all the transactions in the financial year. Perhaps you should have looked at when the bulk of this money was paid.

4) If the auditors said it was a loan, isn't that because you told them it was?

 

You may well play the martyr here Alan but please be aware that I too have a reputation to uphold. We all agreed that financial controls needed to be tightened and they have been.

[Bluedell 5,679]

2) You stated at the AGM that you wanted to say why you resigned as Secretary. You were told that the section was dealing with the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports only. It was certainly not clear from the stage whether or not you said anything else. I only heard you say okay. You know the format of the AGM and any questions can be asked at this time yet you chose to leave.

 

It seems clear that the statement involved the accounts and it seems clear that the acting chairman of the meeting knew that and still prevented him from making the statement.

 

Putting to one side the accuracy or otherwise of Alan's statement, it is totally wrong for the board to prevent this issue being raised at the appropriate time and to be discussed by the members.

[chilledbear 16]

Members of the Board, ex-members of the Board [how many are there now] you have turned the Trust into a joke.

 

As an ex-member, I would no longer give a penny to any organization calling itself The Rangers Trust, the quicker it is disbanded the better, you are bringing the name Rangers into disrepute.

[Frankie 8,674]

PLG:

 

With all due respect, instead of taking subjective issue with a couple of small parts of Mr Harris' information, why not answer the extremely serious points contained within it for the benefit of the debate?

 

The lack of self-deprecation and transparency from the organisation so far (while some also attempt to deflect onto people nothing to do with the current situation) is farcical.

 

Never mind the bizarre failure to openly discuss this serious issue with your members at the AGM, the fact it has taken over a week to release any kind of official statement is also troubling for anyone interested in the well-being of the Trust.

 

I don't think anyone can formulate a fair opinion until we hear your side of the story. I'd recommend you offer that instead of answering valid questions with more questions.

[bmck 117]

Alan, I'm surprised that for someone normally so pedantic

 

I think it's disappointing that this defense of the trust starts, as they do all too often, with a personal attack on the person who is criticising - this time a fellow board member.

[Frankie 8,674]

I think it's disappointing that this defense of the trust starts, as they do all too often, with a personal attack on the person who is criticising - this time a fellow board member.

 

Of course PLG is entitled to defend her and her colleagues' reputation but the best way to do that is answer the allegations directly and openly. I understand that may be better coming from the organisation itself rather than an individual posting informally but the situation is already very much in the public eye.

 

The delay in an official Trust response is disappointing given it has been 7 days since this issue arose.

[bmck 117]

Of course PLG is entitled to defend her and her colleagues' reputation but the best way to do that is answer the allegations directly and openly.

 

Yup, undermining the person who's making the allegations don't make them go away - this approach won't work, and the only possible way out now is honesty. There may very well be another side to all of this, but while people are left to fill in the blanks unchallenged they'll naturally do so in a way that confirms their own views.