RST AGM - Secretary's statement

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BH, thank you for clearing up some of what has been said. As someone who is in no way based in finance it can be extremely difficult to see the exact nature of what has occurred and if you are happy to answer questions on the subject it goes, in my mind anyway, a long way to building your credibility (if that sort of thing concerns you, that is; I could well understand you not caring what faceless voices say about you).

 

Reading both sides has been very helpful but I would like to ask if you will be visiting FF to explain your actions more thouroughly? Clearly these debates polarize opinion and while everything you are saying here is taken at face value and with little in the way of suspicion, the same can be said of statements coming from the trust on FF. there are many people on that board who would benefit from a follow up from yourself and it would perhaps go some little way towards removing the perception that this has been a co-ordinated 'attack' with the collusion of various sites. Of course, the reception is unlikely to be friendly, but a simple follow up may be worth considering, even if it is posted and left as a stand alone piece.

 

 

I was banned some time ago, long before the present discussion. I think my views on certain issues were too moderate for the proprietor's taste. He did kindly offer to reinstate me some months back but I did not take him up on it.

 

So, NO, I won't be going there (too much like the lion's den) but I have no objection to any of my comments being copied to that or any other site.

 

I see that I have also been invited to RM with the suggestion that if I don't go there I have something to hide; which is, of course, utter nonsense. Note that at the same time I have been accused of breaching confidentiality?

 

It is simply a matter of time, I am doing my best on this site and was up until 4.00am yesterday, if I start somewhere else it will be 24/7. I explained at the outset why I registered on this site, I don't know and don't care about all the various factions and what motives are attributed to them.

 

I know I did the right thing by not signing the accounts and am comforted by those professionally qualified people who have suppoorted my stance.

 

Thank you for your kind remarks about my credibility.

 

That and my integrity are very important to me.

[craig 5,199]

BH, thank you for clearing up some of what has been said. As someone who is in no way based in finance it can be extremely difficult to see the exact nature of what has occurred and if you are happy to answer questions on the subject it goes, in my mind anyway, a long way to building your credibility (if that sort of thing concerns you, that is; I could well understand you not caring what faceless voices say about you).

 

Reading both sides has been very helpful but I would like to ask if you will be visiting FF to explain your actions more thouroughly? Clearly these debates polarize opinion and while everything you are saying here is taken at face value and with little in the way of suspicion, the same can be said of statements coming from the trust on FF. there are many people on that board who would benefit from a follow up from yourself and it would perhaps go some little way towards removing the perception that this has been a co-ordinated 'attack' with the collusion of various sites. Of course, the reception is unlikely to be friendly, but a simple follow up may be worth considering, even if it is posted and left as a stand alone piece.

 

Just as a matter of clarity - Gersnet has not, nor ever would so long as I am part of admin, be involved in a collusive effort that would subvert the Gers support at large. Obviously not saying you are suggesting such - but just wanted to clarify Gersnets position.

 

I cant access FF and never have been able to - but from what I hear, and this could be biased opinion, opinions which do not toe the party line are often suppressed. The other problem some would have is that people get absolutely pilloried with little recourse.

 

That said, I dont disagree with you - offering answers to the questions posed does make sense - so long as the person, in this case Mr Harris, was afforded courtesy and respect - as we would hope to see here from the vast majority of our own member base.

[plgsarmy 111]

I was banned some time ago, long before the present discussion. I think my views on certain issues were too moderate for the proprietor's taste. He did kindly offer to reinstate me some months back but I did not take him up on it.

 

So, NO, I won't be going there (too much like the lion's den) but I have no objection to any of my comments being copied to that or any other site.

 

I see that I have also been invited to RM with the suggestion that if I don't go there I have something to hide; which is, of course, utter nonsense. Note that at the same time I have been accused of breaching confidentiality?

 

It is simply a matter of time, I am doing my best on this site and was up until 4.00am yesterday, if I start somewhere else it will be 24/7. I explained at the outset why I registered on this site, I don't know and don't care about all the various factions and what motives are attributed to them.

 

I know I did the right thing by not signing the accounts and am comforted by those professionally qualified people who have suppoorted my stance.

 

Thank you for your kind remarks about my credibility.

 

That and my integrity are very important to me.

 

Just to be clear Alan, did you or did you not offer to sign off the accounts if certain Board members resigned and various other demands were met?

Did you fail to attend the last 2 Board meetings where much of this could have been cleared up? Did you make the excuse for not attending the last meeting (our pre-AGM meeting) that there was no time and venue given, even though the notice said Saturday and the venue was going to be one of two we use about 500 yards from each other. Going by our constitution, then technically you were correct but with such important matters to discuss I'm surprised you didn't make the effort as no other member of the Board objected to it.

What is your version of what GD actually said to you at the AGM? Did you try to make it clear that your statement was pertaining to the accounts? Why did you not try to force the issue?

Did you try to clarify the circumstances of the debt by asking Mr Dingwall?

[Frankie 8,674]

PLG:

 

I respect your right to ask questions to back up your point of view but it seems that is all you're doing here now while ignoring similar from other people.

 

It would be good to see the RST answer a few questions of how they intend to move forward from this.

[plgsarmy 111]

PLG:

 

I respect your right to ask questions to back up your point of view but it seems that is all you're doing here now while ignoring similar from other people.

 

It would be good to see the RST answer a few questions of how they intend to move forward from this.

 

Given that the Board hasn't met to discuss this than I don't think it's up to me to decide. We've actually only had two members contact us, one to ask for clarification about what's going on and another looking to join as a life member and make a donation. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of this but I'm sure if people look at the facts they will see that any mistakes made were not made through malicious intent nor anyone seeking financial gain.

[chilledbear 16]

Given that the Board hasn't met to discuss this than I don't think it's up to me to decide. We've actually only had two members contact us, one to ask for clarification about what's going on and another looking to join as a life member and make a donation. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of this but I'm sure if people look at the facts they will see that any mistakes made were not made through malicious intent nor anyone seeking financial gain.

 

 

Is it not the case that one individual on the Trust Board is the catalyst for all the agro.

 

Does it not come down to what is more important, The Trust or MD?

[Guest TheWorthyEd]

Given that the Board hasn't met to discuss this than I don't think it's up to me to decide. We've actually only had two members contact us, one to ask for clarification about what's going on and another looking to join as a life member and make a donation. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of this but I'm sure if people look at the facts they will see that any mistakes made were not made through malicious intent nor anyone seeking financial gain.

 

How many days have passed since the AGM in question?

 

Given the furore this situation has caused one would have thought that the RST Board would have convened and emergency meeting to set the matter straight.

 

This could and should have been arranged within days of such a high profile resignation.

 

The RST's reputation sinks lower by the passing day.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Given that the Board hasn't met to discuss this than I don't think it's up to me to decide. We've actually only had two members contact us, one to ask for clarification about what's going on and another looking to join as a life member and make a donation. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of this but I'm sure if people look at the facts they will see that any mistakes made were not made through malicious intent nor anyone seeking financial gain.

 

We are still waiting for the facts to be established. We were promised a statement 5 days ago, and we are still waiting for some clarity on the situation. Why would members be contacting you when we are all waiting for this statement?

 

Edit - sorry I have now seen that a statement has been issued. It was not on the site when I checked late yesterday.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Bluedell

[bmck 117]

I'm not trying to undermine the importance of this but I'm sure if people look at the facts they will see that any mistakes made were not made through malicious intent nor anyone seeking financial gain.

 

I'm sorry, but shifting the focus to malicious intent or financial gain is exactly an attempt, it would seem to me, to undermine the importance of this. The 'mistakes made' (or, as someone who wasn't trying to undermine the importance would say it "the mistakes we made"), and the manner in which the board has split to each accuse the other of bad intentions, is the important issue - namely, that the RST is showing itself to make mistakes that are irresponsible with money, disunited and be less than transparent in dealing with it. These 'mistakes made' would never have come to public light, if your hand weren't forced. No matter how the issue may be undermined by tactically pointing at agendas and good intentions and all these other things, these mistakes are serious for people without an agenda, and are the very things that aren't being addressed meaningfully. Saying "Yeah, our bad" (or, "Yeah, bad's occurred") only because it's come to light, and it's pragmatically necessary to do so, just isn't good enough, imho.

[ascender 352]

Is it not the case that one individual on the Trust Board is the catalyst for all the agro.

 

Does it not come down to what is more important, The Trust or MD?

 

As someone who really doesn't know the history involving MD, apart from the fact he appears to own FF and polarises opinion amongst fans, that's one of the things that has come out of this week for me. I still don't know the rights and the wrongs, but in any other professional organisation I'd have expected someone in his position to have tendered his resignation by now for the good of the Trust.

 

Part of the problem appears to be that on FF which I've been reading this week although I don't post any more, is that the opinion seems to be that he has done nothing wrong at all. And you know, that might be the case. But the problem is one of perception. The damage has been done to the trust's reputation and nothing will change that.

 

Meanwhile, I've read lots of comments on there suggesting organised smear campaigns against him and the Trust as a whole by other forums. This again raises the question about FF and whether its an official mouthpiece for the trust and the old thing about whether the views expressed on there by trust board members are the views of the trust or just their personal feelings. Anyone not toeing the line on these views is dismissed as being part of this smear campaign/celtic-minded/a ******* etc.

 

No-one at the trust appears to be looking at the bigger picture here and what all of this is doing for their reputation. Which makes me then question the board again, MD and whoever else is on it. Can they not see the complete pigs ear they've made of how this has been handled since the AGM? Can they not see the problem they have by using FF as their sounding platform?

 

Common sense seems to have gone out the window there a long time ago. I still support the aims of the trust, I don't envy the difficult task they have and appreciate the fact that fellow fans are giving up a lot of time to help out, but why does it appear to be run as some sort of after-school club instead of a professional organisation?

 

Its depressing stuff. Now, what was the point of this post??!?