RST AGM - Secretary's statement

[Frankie 8,674]

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.

 

I appreciate that but you must have an idea and certainly a personal opinion. After all, one could argue this accounts nonsense is actually by the by when one examines the bigger picture.

 

As for only one email of contact that only shows the apathy and lack of activity of the membership as opposed to people being concerned. Also remember they were only 'officially' informed of this yesterday evening; over a week after information leaked out so opinions were probably already decided upon from those who use online forums.

 

Throughout this most people have acknowledged the fact nobody was trying to gain financially out of this per se. However, the issue was covered up, was missing from two years of accounts and the Trust is still in disrepute.

 

As a former member and as a potential member, I want to know what the Trust are doing to address those that acted unsuitably and how they intend to recover a diminishing reputation. Those are not unreasonable questions and they are questions the RST must answer.

[Bluedell 5,679]

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?

 

Are you trying to blame the former secretary for the chairman refusing him the opportunity to speak at the AGM?

 

Given that the board had taken legal advice and had got the auditor along to the AGM then it seems disingenuous to try and suggest that the Board and the Chairman did not know at least part of the content of his statement, and the fact that it was relevant to the accounts.

 

I am still unclear as to the rights and wrongs of the situation but I am convinced that that it was totally wrong for the chairman to prevent this from being discussed by the members at the AGM at the time when the former secretary tried to raise it.

[Frankie 8,674]

Are you trying to blame the former secretary for the chairman refusing him the opportunity to speak at the AGM?

 

Given that the board had taken legal advice and had got the auditor along to the AGM then it seems disingenuous to try and suggest that the Board and the Chairman did not know at least part of the content of his statement, and the fact that it was relevant to the accounts.

 

I am still unclear as to the rights and wrongs of the situation but I am convinced that that it was totally wrong for the chairman to prevent this from being discussed by the members at the AGM at the time when the former secretary tried to raise it.

 

Even if you take that out of the equation, I'd have considered it more prudent of the Trust board to raise it themselves, irrespective of Mr Harris' intentions.

[pete 2,499]

Even if you take that out of the equation, I'd have considered it more prudent of the Trust board to raise it themselves, irrespective of Mr Harris' intentions.

 

Did the carpet have a big lump in the middle?

[Bluedell 5,679]

The statement is disappointing. It does not clarify any dates. Will the RST board please clarify the exact date of the dinner and the dates that the amounts were repaid?

 

It also does not address the concern that this issue was prevented from being discussed at the relevant time of the AGM.

 

I am still unclear about whether this is an issue that required disclosure in the accounts.

[ascender 352]

Ah bollocks, I've gone and posted on FF. I couldn't help myself when I read one post.....

 

See, this is what I don't understand. Is FF the official platform for the trust's views? And if so, why does anyone not agreeing with these views have to be against the trust or members for personal reasons rather than just having a different and valid opinion?

 

Originally Posted by Grandmaster_Suck

Obviously I'd have liked to have been in a position to get it paid off earlier rather than see the issue used to embarrass the Trust by those with self-serving and negative agendas.

Not everyone taking an interest in this has a self-serving or negative agenda. Some trust members like myself are just disappointed with the lack of communication which has been a problem for years and with the way this situation has been handled.

 

I don't doubt there are those who do have a grudge against the trust or some of its members, but I think its a poor show that anyone questioning what's going on are liable to be tarred with the same brush. Its disingenuous to blame this "feeding frenzy" on people who were just looking for answers, but now, thanks to the method of communication from trust board members and other associates across multiple message boards, really don't know what to believe any more. Most people will be clever enough to sort out the facts from those just stirring trouble, but the other problem is that there's no smoke without fire and it will lead to people questioning other things, that's just human nature.

 

This has all snowballed out of control when it could have been controlled much better by the trust themselves. Its now got to the point where it doesn't really matter if there was anything wrong/illegal/improper done in the first place. The (further) damage to the trust's reputation has been done and it now needs strong leadership and a clean slate if its going to carry on from here.

 

FWIW, I still support the trust's aims. They are commendable and I appreciate the fact that volunteers have given up their time in what's a thankless task in trying to achieve them while uniting a fractious and apathetic support.

[bmck 117]

And if so, why does anyone not agreeing with these views have to be against the trust or members for personal reasons rather than just having a different and valid opinion?

 

If I were cynical I'd say because it's the most pragmatically effective way to make this go away. It's certainly how how David Murray has gone about it: make the noisy vitriolic objections the entire objection, and use general apathy and dislike of noise to ride the reasonable objections out. By effectively poisoning the well, and saying objections are agenda-driven, your post now can only be viewed honestly with effort and against a background of suggestion of lurking agendas etc.

Edited September 29, 2010 by bmck

[plgsarmy 111]

Are you trying to blame the former secretary for the chairman refusing him the opportunity to speak at the AGM?

 

Given that the board had taken legal advice and had got the auditor along to the AGM then it seems disingenuous to try and suggest that the Board and the Chairman did not know at least part of the content of his statement, and the fact that it was relevant to the accounts.

 

I am still unclear as to the rights and wrongs of the situation but I am convinced that that it was totally wrong for the chairman to prevent this from being discussed by the members at the AGM at the time when the former secretary tried to raise it.

 

No, I'm trying to establish his version of what was said to him at the AGM. I heard him say that he wished to say why he resigned as secretary and GD say that the section of the meeting was for specific questions on the Secretary's and Teasurer's reports and that he could speak at the Q&A session. I didn't hear AH say anything further than that other than okay and he sat down. I'm simply trying to establish what AH thought was said to him.

[wabashcannonball 0]

When you can see through this sort of gash, you will have the answer.

 

but Edgar is confident that the Rangers family will rally around.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1261448/The-real-deal-Revolution-air-fans-insist-Rangers-coup-cards.html#ixzz10uMauC00

[Frankie 8,674]

Ah bollocks, I've gone and posted on FF. I couldn't help myself when I read one post.....

 

See, this is what I don't understand. Is FF the official platform for the trust's views? And if so, why does anyone not agreeing with these views have to be against the trust or members for personal reasons rather than just having a different and valid opinion?

 

FF is now the only site that gets Trust news posted with comment from a variety of board members.

 

As well as invitations to be co-opted onto the board this morning.