Rangers Supporters Trust 'suspend spokesman over improper conduct'

[Zappa 0]

Do you now? How about you call off your Pavlovian attack dogs, who spring into action as soon as someone dares to suggest Dingwall may not be the Messiah? Do that and then then we'll chat.

 

You're not making any sense at all here because I'm not a member of the RST, don't know Mark Dingwall personally and I don't have any attack dogs.

 

Sure. My RM username is Captainof Industry. I'd give you my FF login but I've now been life banned 5 times. You can have my VB username if you like but I imagine it may not be of much use to you??

 

Thanks!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

This is old news being regurgitated by Mr. Harris. At the end of the "cheque" saga the RST took advice from its auditors who stated there was no reason for MD or stand down from the board. Also the only person out of pocket was MD.

Why bring this up again 3 years later? Whatever it's about it's not this.

 

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

The reason I posted at all was that my name and that matter was alluded to in at least 6 posts on this thread. I think I am entitled to reply.

 

I made very brief reference to the events in 2010 to demonstrate that it appeared to be a different matter. I agree that it is old news and the full text of my resignation letters and statements were published on here at the time.

 

I would just like to clarify two points if I may. The Trust, as I understand it, took advice from a firm of lawyers who said that there had been a breach of the rules (inasmuch as Mr Dingwall should have stood down at the time) and a conflict of interest but that there was no need for Mr Dingwall to stand down post the event.

 

Secondly, the auditors said that the RST Rules did not allow for making loans to third parties and that as a result there were breaches of various Rules. The auditors stated furthermore that breaching these Rules could lead to action being taken by the FSA or RST's taxable status being challenged by the Revenue. In other words by making the loan RST could become taxable on its income.

 

So far as I am aware no such action was ever taken and I repeat that I have no knowledge of any current reference to the FCA.

[rbr 1,266]

Almost 24 hours after the initial story broke and still no statement of any kind from the RST , truly breathtakingly bad imho

[ian1964 10,761]

Almost 24 hours after the initial story broke and still no statement of any kind from the RST , truly breathtakingly bad imho

 

And worrying!

[bluebear54 0]

Brahim. You can put your house on the Tim's getting hold of what you've just written, or worse, the snakes that infest our Club.

 

As a member I hope I'm wrong, but the the silence from the RST is worrying.

 

However, this is an RST problem. It's for them to sort out and regroup so they can contribute to the debate, and the AGM.

There sure are some thoughtless people around who are clearly lacking in foresight. There are also some around whose modus operandi leaves a lot to be desired. Actually, cancel that last bit. it's putrid.

It's easier to attack who you want under the cloak of internet anonymity. It's like the fucking Spanish Inquisition.

If MD , RST or both buggered up, so be it. It's up to them to sort it out or not. It's up to each forum member on here to make up their own mind about all of this. It's about RST - not the whole fanbase.

I'll make up my mind about MD/RST when I am good and ready. I don't need to be spoonfed to make my mind up.

I've already made my mind up about one poster on this thread.

[Zappa 0]

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

I think you've made it BH and apologies for dragging you into this unnecessarily.

[chilledbear 16]

However, this is an RST problem. It's for them to sort out and regroup so they can contribute to the debate, and the AGM.

There sure are some thoughtless people around who are clearly lacking in foresight. There are also some around whose modus operandi leaves a lot to be desired. Actually, cancel that last bit. it's putrid.

It's easier to attack who you want under the cloak of internet anonymity. It's like the fucking Spanish Inquisition.

If MD , RST or both buggered up, so be it. It's up to them to sort it out or not. It's up to each forum member on here to make up their own mind about all of this. It's about RST - not the whole fanbase.

I'll make up my mind about MD/RST when I am good and ready. I don't need to be spoonfed to make my mind up.

I've already made my mind up about one poster on this thread.

 

You can calm as well.

[amms 0]

I don't know Mark Dingwall, I've never met him and I doubt we'd have much in common other than Rangers judging from the little I've picked up about his beliefs on various subjects. I also know he seems to polarise opinion among those who do know him.

But it seems to me that as long as he hasn't served time in prison for VAT fraud or awarded himself a £200,000 bonus for, erm, someone else doing their job, then he's still a more attractive option than some of our current board.

 

As far as I know the RST aren't proposing Dingwall for the board of Rangers, this seems to be a little local difficulty if it's anything at all. As such it's for the RST to sort out and I'm surprised it even interests non-members. Well, I say I'm surprised, I'm obviously not.

[crucible 0]

I was of a mind that the RST should keep their own counsel but now that is clearly a boat that has sailed, irrespective of anyone's politics this is the last distraction we need in the run up to the AGM.

[BEARGER 1,830]

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

The reason I posted at all was that my name and that matter was alluded to in at least 6 posts on this thread. I think I am entitled to reply.

 

I made very brief reference to the events in 2010 to demonstrate that it appeared to be a different matter. I agree that it is old news and the full text of my resignation letters and statements were published on here at the time.

 

I would just like to clarify two points if I may. The Trust, as I understand it, took advice from a firm of lawyers who said that there had been a breach of the rules (inasmuch as Mr Dingwall should have stood down at the time) and a conflict of interest but that there was no need for Mr Dingwall to stand down post the event.

 

Secondly, the auditors said that the RST Rules did not allow for making loans to third parties and that as a result there were breaches of various Rules. The auditors stated furthermore that breaching these Rules could lead to action being taken by the FSA or RST's taxable status being challenged by the Revenue. In other words by making the loan RST could become taxable on its income.

 

So far as I am aware no such action was ever taken and I repeat that I have no knowledge of any current reference to the FCA.

 

The RST did not "loan" MD any money and you know it. You are playing with words here, you come across as very bitter IMO.

Edited December 15, 2013 by BEARGER