Rangers Supporters Trust 'suspend spokesman over improper conduct'

[3909 04 0]

I don't know anything about Mark Dingwall, but it does seem odd that a account that hasn't been posting for a while reappears when there's a topic about him.

 

Hey guys, if you don't want users posting about MD, can I suggest you don't start threads about him?

 

Catch y'all later, I'm off to uncover the truth. BRB when I find it.

[Juancornetto 1]

Mark who?....

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I am indebted to a Gersnet member for drawing my attention to the story on STV last night. I was fairly sure that my name would come up in this connection, so I have reviewed this thread today.

 

The reason I have not been on here for some time is that I honestly got fed up with all the boardroom shenanigans and decided to concentrate on watching the team play football. Gersnet can be a bit of an addiction and when I found myself being accused of spamming various threads I thought it was time to give it a rest for a while.

 

I can state categorically that I am not the source of any current story about Mr Dingwall and have no knowledge whatsoever of any complaint against him at this time or indeed anything to with RST. I have not had any involvement with RST since I resigned from the Board in October 2010.

 

However, since reference has been made to the events at that time I will say briefly that at an audit meeting on 4 August 2010 I questioned an unspecified debt of £2,690 in the accounts which the Treasurer, Christine Somerville then confirmed arose from bounced cheques issued by followfollow.com. The Trust’s subsequent statement confirmed the exact amount of the debt, £2,690, and conceded that this was outstanding for an “extended period of time”, actually from 12 to 23 months, during which period partial repayments were made.

 

The Trust’s statement also said that their legal advice confirmed my view that there was a conflict of interest arising from the debt owed by Mr. Mark Dingwall and his position on the Board. The statement omited to mention that neither Mr. Dingwall nor the Chair brought this debt, or the conflict of interest arising, to the attention of the Board.

 

I quote the following from my resignation letter to the then Chair, Stephen Smith:

 

In my opinion your position as a Board member is untenable for a number of reasons not the least of which was your failure as Chair to advise the Board of the debt owed by Mr Dingwall from September 2008 to August 2010. Equally I am of the opinion that Mr Dingwall’s position is untenable for a number of reasons, principal amongst which was his failure to declare the conflict of interest that arose from his debt as required by rule or to stand down from the Board at that time.

 

I call upon you and Mr Dingwall to resign forthwith.

As stated I have had no subsequent involvement with the Trust and have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the OP.

[SteveC 150]

What the hell has happened to this forum this week? I used to come here thinking it a relatively safe refuge from other fan forum madness, trolling and personal self-aggrandizement. First the "Keevins" thread and now this one with some very determinedly self-motivated agendas being pushed ....is it all going the way of other boards?

 

Ah well, a relatively sane board was probably too good to last.

[TheTinMan99 0]

Very disappointing. Six pages in and not a solitary mention of jaffa cakes. Are such posts being deleted?

[3909 04 0]

I am indebted to a Gersnet member for drawing my attention to the story on STV last night. I was fairly sure that my name would come up in this connection, so I have reviewed this thread today.

 

The reason I have not been on here for some time is that I honestly got fed up with all the boardroom shenanigans and decided to concentrate on watching the team play football. Gersnet can be a bit of an addiction and when I found myself being accused of spamming various threads I thought it was time to give it a rest for a while.

 

I can state categorically that I am not the source of any current story about Mr Dingwall and have no knowledge whatsoever of any complaint against him at this time or indeed anything to with RST. I have not had any involvement with RST since I resigned from the Board in October 2010.

 

However, since reference has been made to the events at that time I will say briefly that at an audit meeting on 4 August 2010 I questioned an unspecified debt of £2,690 in the accounts which the Treasurer, Christine Somerville then confirmed arose from bounced cheques issued by followfollow.com. The Trust’s subsequent statement confirmed the exact amount of the debt, £2,690, and conceded that this was outstanding for an “extended period of time”, actually from 12 to 23 months, during which period partial repayments were made.

 

The Trust’s statement also said that their legal advice confirmed my view that there was a conflict of interest arising from the debt owed by Mr. Mark Dingwall and his position on the Board. The statement omited to mention that neither Mr. Dingwall nor the Chair brought this debt, or the conflict of interest arising, to the attention of the Board.

 

I quote the following from my resignation letter to the then Chair, Stephen Smith:

 

In my opinion your position as a Board member is untenable for a number of reasons not the least of which was your failure as Chair to advise the Board of the debt owed by Mr Dingwall from September 2008 to August 2010. Equally I am of the opinion that Mr Dingwall’s position is untenable for a number of reasons, principal amongst which was his failure to declare the conflict of interest that arose from his debt as required by rule or to stand down from the Board at that time.

 

I call upon you and Mr Dingwall to resign forthwith.

As stated I have had no subsequent involvement with the Trust and have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the OP.

 

This is absolutely scandalous. So the RST chairman refused even to acknowledge a conflict of interest and misappropriation of funds by an RST board member?

 

It's now beyond question that some RST board members have conspired to cover up the truth in order to protect a colleague.

 

Ironic, isn't it, that some Rangers fans act very clearly against the best interests of both the club and the support simply because they happen to like or are friendly with Mark Dingwall?

 

Go on, Slinger. Give this a "Thanks".

[SteveC 150]

Fifteen posts since March 2nd, and fourteen of them on this one, non football, topic. One would almost suspect a personal involvement/agenda/angle were one suspicious.

[3909 04 0]

Fifteen posts since March 2nd, and fourteen of them on this one, non football, topic. One would almost suspect a personal involvement/agenda/angle were one suspicious.

 

One might possibly answer by pointing out the endless RST/FF-led calls for complete transparency and the removal of spivs from the club. Whither such calls today?

 

Transparency, the absence of spivery and my continuing quest for truth; that's all I seek.

[SteveC 150]

One might possibly answer by pointing out the endless RST/FF-led calls for complete transparency and the removal of spivs from the club. Whither such calls today?

 

Transparency, the absence of spivery and my continuing quest for truth; that's all I seek.

 

That's not how your sudden dedicated posting nor their content reads on this thread. However perhaps that is just because I am unused to dealing with saintly knights of veracity on internet forums and you've been too busy fighting for justice and honesty around the globe with no self-interest at heart to come on here and talk about, oh I don't know just about anything other than Mark Dingwall.

 

Sad to see how this board has gone this last week. Particularly with an important time for the club imminent, it would have been nice to have felt one could have popped in here to keep up-to-date, but it looks like it is becoming yet another Rangers' forum to avoid. Another that concerns itself with fans and followers rather than the club itself; another where arguing between virtual identities becomes more important than what is ostensibly being discussed.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

That's not how your sudden dedicated posting nor their content reads on this thread. However perhaps that is just because I am unused to dealing with saintly knights of veracity on internet forums and you've been too busy fighting for justice and honesty around the globe with no self-interest at heart to come on here and talk about, oh I don't know just about anything other than Mark Dingwall.

 

Sad to see how this board has gone this last week. Particularly with an important time for the club imminent, it would have been nice to have felt one could have popped in here to keep up-to-date, but it looks like it is becoming yet another Rangers' forum to avoid. Another that concerns itself with fans and followers rather than the club itself; another where arguing between virtual identities becomes more important than what is ostensibly being discussed.

 

 

discord is the aim of the spivs. they know they won't survive us uniting.