The financial affairs of the RST

[rbr 1,270]

What is very clear from all of this is that certain board members positions are now untenable , and if they do put Rangers above their own self interest they will go and go quickly , hopefully something good can come out of this sorry mess.

 

Its a good job the team and the club are doing well on and off the field can you imagine the reaction if this was last years !!!!!!!

Edited September 27, 2010 by rbr

[Bluedell 5,679]

Would it be fair to say the RST board should call an EGM given their decision not to discuss the matter last week?

 

I'll reserve judgement on that until the full facts are clarified.

 

As has been pointed out, there is a discrepancy in the former secretary's dates of when the sum was repaid which has been pointed out by the former treasurer, but the actual dates involved have not yet been clarified.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

Normally in any stooshie between those of opposing sides in the ongoing great RST saga, it is important to read both sides, and the input from FF in defending the RST position is always worth a read to balance the opinions of those who are most definately opposed to it, either in principle or in personality.

 

This last week while all this post-AGM story has been developing, multi-page threads on here RM and FF can be read and opposing views given. In amongst the mud-slinging and personal abuse from both sides, you can usually get enough snippets of information, if you know the background, to form a picture of what really happened, and form an opinion of where the truth probably lies.

 

Couple that with some personal emails and PM's and you can just about get to where the story is without any need for the pages and pages of garbage to sidetrack you from getting to where you need to go.

 

So now that Mr Harris's statement that we should have heard at the AGM has been made public, correctly IMO, I have been checking on FF to see the other side of the story being put up. Not that I am doubting the accuracy of his statement, but you always have to read both sides to ensure you get the proper balance, and to hear how the allegations made have been defended.

 

So onto what FF has had to say about this.

 

Which is where I have the problem. There is quite simply nothing about this at all on FF. Not one thread published today on his statement. No debate, no other side of the story, not even any mud.

 

There cannot be any bigger off-field story at the moment than this, certainly not for the online bears who know all the main players pretty well by now, and I am absolutely astonished that it has just been completely blackballed. For the biggest forum to be totally blanking the story is bad news, and further proof that the RST needs its own forum. And I even checked their Facebook page as this seems to be the big new thing (I still dont really get this facebook thing, but im trying!) but there is nothing there either.

 

FF has never ever shirked a story that I can remember in this way before. And that has to be worrying for all those who enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of Bears on a variety of forums.

 

I know there have been calls from the membership and from board members of the RST for a full, prompt and complete statement to be issued by the board, but continual checking of the Trust website stills draws a blank.

 

Of course Alan Harris's statement was only released late last night, so it could be that the RST have called an emergency board meeting for this morning to discuss the matter and a statement will follow later today. Or perhaps that is only what should have happened.

 

Members not only want, but surely are entitled to a fully disclosed, accurate and frank explanation of affairs, and without any further delay, together with what action has been taken to resolve this sorry affair and to try to rebuild the Trust's broken and battered reputation.

[Frankie 8,674]

Well said TB...

 

When admirable and completely neutral commentators like yourself are expressing such serious concern, then the Trust should be worried. No amount of deflection or cover-up can satisfy people who pay their money and deserve to be treated infinitely better than they are now.

[boss 0]

Tannochside is the epitome of reasonableness. Mr Reasonable from Reason Street, Both Sides Town, Reasonably Everywhere.

 

If he can smell the stink ...

[wabashcannonball 0]

Normally in any stooshie between those of opposing sides in the ongoing great RST saga, it is important to read both sides, and the input from FF in defending the RST position is always worth a read to balance the opinions of those who are most definately opposed to it, either in principle or in personality.

 

This last week while all this post-AGM story has been developing, multi-page threads on here RM and FF can be read and opposing views given. In amongst the mud-slinging and personal abuse from both sides, you can usually get enough snippets of information, if you know the background, to form a picture of what really happened, and form an opinion of where the truth probably lies.

 

Couple that with some personal emails and PM's and you can just about get to where the story is without any need for the pages and pages of garbage to sidetrack you from getting to where you need to go.

 

So now that Mr Harris's statement that we should have heard at the AGM has been made public, correctly IMO, I have been checking on FF to see the other side of the story being put up. Not that I am doubting the accuracy of his statement, but you always have to read both sides to ensure you get the proper balance, and to hear how the allegations made have been defended.

 

So onto what FF has had to say about this.

 

Which is where I have the problem. There is quite simply nothing about this at all on FF. Not one thread published today on his statement. No debate, no other side of the story, not even any mud.

 

There cannot be any bigger off-field story at the moment than this, certainly not for the online bears who know all the main players pretty well by now, and I am absolutely astonished that it has just been completely blackballed. For the biggest forum to be totally blanking the story is bad news, and further proof that the RST needs its own forum. And I even checked their Facebook page as this seems to be the big new thing (I still dont really get this facebook thing, but im trying!) but there is nothing there either.

 

FF has never ever shirked a story that I can remember in this way before. And that has to be worrying for all those who enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of Bears on a variety of forums.

 

I know there have been calls from the membership and from board members of the RST for a full, prompt and complete statement to be issued by the board, but continual checking of the Trust website stills draws a blank.

 

Of course Alan Harris's statement was only released late last night, so it could be that the RST have called an emergency board meeting for this morning to discuss the matter and a statement will follow later today. Or perhaps that is only what should have happened.

 

Members not only want, but surely are entitled to a fully disclosed, accurate and frank explanation of affairs, and without any further delay, together with what action has been taken to resolve this sorry affair and to try to rebuild the Trust's broken and battered reputation.

 

 

The rst has its own forum.......�£�£.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

1. I don't know, but from reading the comments on here I'd say it was people who were at the AGM. As you know I don't normally look at these web sites. I only registered here on Tuesday.

2. I was told I could ask questions at that point; I was not told I could make a statement later.

3. Thanks for pointing out this error for which I apologise. I have edited the original document. However if you look back to my very first post on here on Saturday night, you will see that I said that �£2690 was outstanding at 5 April 2009 and �£30 at 5 April 2010. So it remains true that the debt was incurred in Sep-Nov 2008, none was repaid by 5 April 2009 and followfollow.com had a free loan of Trust monies for the best part of 18 months.

4. No I didn't.

[Frankie 8,674]

Thanks for the clarification BH....

[gisabeer 409]

why were ff given a "loan" in the first place?

[plgsarmy 111]

1. I don't know, but from reading the comments on here I'd say it was people who were at the AGM. As you know I don't normally look at these web sites. I only registered here on Tuesday.

2. I was told I could ask questions at that point; I was not told I could make a statement later.

3. Thanks for pointing out this error for which I apologise. I have edited the original document. However if you look back to my very first post on here on Saturday night, you will see that I said that �£2690 was outstanding at 5 April 2009 and �£30 at 5 April 2010. So it remains true that the debt was incurred in Sep-Nov 2008, none was repaid by 5 April 2009 and followfollow.com had a free loan of Trust monies for the best part of 18 months.

4. No I didn't.

 

Whilst I disagree with most of that Alan, I'm not prepared to get into a spat with you on an internet forum. What I would like to clarify for people is your reference to the Student Loan Company as I've seen that on another site people putting two and two together and coming out with 356. If you didn't understand at the time why didn't you say so as I clearly remember explaining it to you. Simply, an ex-Board member worked for this company and was responsible for running a charity fundraiser. He simply borrowed our credit card machine for the evening to enable credit cards to be taken at their auction. We took in the money on their behalf and when the statement came in we gave them the money back, less the transaction charges that were incurred. Nobody lost, nobody gained but suddenly people are implying that we are paying off student loans.