The financial affairs of the RST

[Guest Dylanger]

Thanks for replying.

 

 

 

As a member, but someone who isn't party to any insider knowledge or behind the scenes info - who are these people? I can guess plgsarmy and the person to whom the money was loaned.

 

The treasurer, the chair and vice chair along with the person who was involved in the transaction.

 

If my understanding is correct the vice chair has left the board, the chair is going and plg is no longer treasurer.

[bmck 117]

The treasurer, the chair and vice chair along with the person who was involved in the transaction.

 

If my understanding is correct the vice chair has left the board, the chair is going and plg is no longer treasurer.

 

Apologies for the continued questions, but there's been so much nudge nudge wink wink about this whole affair that those of us with limited access to information are left trying to parse a lot of information since very little's been officially said.

 

So just so there's a note, taking names from the website: Stephen Smith and Gordon Dinnie will no longer be involved in the leadership of the RST? PLG will be, but as an ordinary board member, and the person involved in the transaction (Mark Dingwall) is unaffected?

 

Are these changes, where they are, a direct consequence of all this, or have they left for other reasons? Will any of this be made public in a statement, do you know?

[Guest Dylanger]

Apologies for the continued questions, but there's been so much nudge nudge wink wink about this whole affair that those of us with limited access to information are left trying to parse a lot of information since very little's been officially said.

 

So just so there's a note, taking names from the website: Stephen Smith and Gordon Dinnie will no longer be involved in the leadership of the RST? PLG will be, but as an ordinary board member, and the person involved in the transaction (Mark Dingwall) is unaffected?

 

Are these changes, where they are, a direct consequence of all this, or have they left for other reasons? Will any of this be made public in a statement, do you know?

 

If my time line is correct Davie Edgar was actually vice chair at the time.

 

I don't think any of the changes are directly related to these events but obviously I can't know that.

[Frankie 8,674]

Well, their official reasons certainly didn't mention financial irregularities but who can tell with the subterfuge and speculation that seems to accompany every Trust decision nowadays....

[Guest Dylanger]

I think it should be made clear by those not quite following the detail is that the auditors saw nothing wrong (other than the fact it was messy) with the books.

 

That's a key point and probably accounts to some extent why the board maybe didn't react however clearly there are differences of opinion between Mr Harris and the board.

 

Beyond that the actions at the time and the subsequent fall out raises questions of transparency and indeed some of the detail on how things progressed doesn't leave certain parties looking smart.Those are imho the areas of concern not the notion of somebody was pocketing money etc.

[Frankie 8,674]

I think it should be made clear by those not quite following the detail is that the auditors saw nothing wrong (other than the fact it was messy) with the books.

 

That's a key point and probably accounts to some extent why the board maybe didn't react however clearly there are differences of opinion between Mr Harris and the board.

 

Beyond that the actions at the time and the subsequent fall out raises questions of transparency and indeed some of the detail on how things progressed doesn't leave certain parties looking smart.Those are imho the areas of concern not the notion of somebody was pocketing money etc.

 

As indicated previously, I'm no accountant or legal expert, so I'll bow to your interpretation of the auditor's comment.

 

The emboldened part is what any reasonable person would agree with I'm sure. The Trust would do well to realise that and act suitably.

[craig 5,199]

 

Currently I would say the whole board have botched the last 6 weeks although to be fair we won't know the detail of the debates behind the scenes.

 

But there is the rub.

 

The board have not "botched the last 6 weeks" - they have, in my opinion, botched the last two years.

 

Any positive work done by the RST and the board of the RST has been not just eroded but completely demolished.

 

I had great hopes for the RST and it convinced me to become a life member - but I can honestly say that the unfolding of events in the last couple of years have made me apathetic AT BEST. Definitely discouraged and somewhat frustrated. I am sure I am not alone in that position either.

 

Funny that the RST at one point or another asked for the club Board to be more communicative and less secretive to the fans at large.... and the RST themselves are as bad as the club for secrecy. They are, again in my opinion, treating their paying members very poorly.

 

It may have been coincidental but when MD came into the RST fold the communication with the press took a turn, and one I didnt like - whereas previously they were dignified in any media relations they became more interested in point-scoring than showing integrity - I cant remember which interview/communication it was but I do remember it being debated on here.

 

Things have gone very poorly for the Trust in the last couple of years and, to be honest, the Trust Board can have no-one but themselves to blame - they have been makers of their own problems.

[craig 5,199]

I think it should be made clear by those not quite following the detail is that the auditors saw nothing wrong (other than the fact it was messy) with the books.

 

That's a key point and probably accounts to some extent why the board maybe didn't react however clearly there are differences of opinion between Mr Harris and the board.

 

Beyond that the actions at the time and the subsequent fall out raises questions of transparency and indeed some of the detail on how things progressed doesn't leave certain parties looking smart.Those are imho the areas of concern not the notion of somebody was pocketing money etc.

 

Auditors finding nothing wrong wouldnt make a) the treatment of the transactions right nor b) prove the auditors correct nor c) categorically state no wrongdoing took place. Lest we forget Enron, WorldCom etc.

 

I dont think that it is even debatable that the transactions should have been disclosed under FRS8 (Related Party Transactions) - the fact that it wasnt would in itself call into question the opinion (or at least quality of audit) that the auditors provided.

[pete 2,499]

Just as a matter of interest, i would imagine that the books have to be audited and signed before every AGM. Why was this not brought to the front last year when the accounts were presented?

[Guest blackstoneisland]

is it the same company that was used to audit the books? maybe they mentioned something, maybe not.

 

things look bad for the trust but not quite getting why some seem really please about that, aren't most of them just ordinary fans like you and I?