Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Thanks, C, got it now. I see you've got your old job back... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Thanks, C, got it now. I see you've got your old job back... Do you want it? You are welcome to it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Very tempting but I think I will pass 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Very tempting but I think I will pass I thought you might say that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I am surprised that you don't know the answers to the first two questions. Is it normal for the ML to be directed to the Secretary? As an ML normally contains comments on the accounting and control environment I would have thought it should be directed to the Treasurer. Again, that is one you would need to ask the auditors about. However, my understanding is that the ML is directed to the Secretary as adviser to the Board (and a servant of the members) as per the SD Rules, it was my position to raise the issues arising with the Board. Now that I have been able to review the relevant emails, I can confirm that the auditors sent emails directly to Christine as Treasurer and me as Secretary about matters arising from the audit meeting that were cross cc’d on 5 August 2010 and the first draft of the ML was actually sent to both Christine and I directly on the same email on 9 August 2010, when we were BOTH asked to comment. I sent my comments the same night AND COPIED IN BOTH Christine as the current Treasurer and Alison as the Treasurer elect. I do not know if Christine or Alison sent comments; if they did they were not copied to me. I received the revised letter the following morning. I circulated this to the Board on 12 August 2012 and emailed the auditors, cc’d directly to Christine and Alison, from which I quote: I have circulated this to the enire Board of RST. It is my responsibly as Secretary to sign the accounts on behalf of the Board but I am not prepared to do so because of the irregularities and mismanagement that has been revealed by the audit. The Treasurer stated at our meeting that she had brought this matter to the attention of the Chair and Vice Chair but it was not disclosed to me or the Board at large and no action was taken. I am a regulated person under the Financial Services Act as is my business and I cannot afford to be associated with breaches of Rules that could result in action being taken by the FSA. Therefore I cannot continue as Secretary and I have this day tendered my resignation from that position but remain a member of the Board. As you will see both the Treasurer and Treasurer Elect were fully involved in this process and aware of my opinions from the outset. I would be astonished if the Treasurer had not shared that information with the other Board members who were involved. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Derek, there hasn't been any attempt to hide who is on the board, certainly not as far as I know. In fact when you first brought it up and I discovered the names weren't on it I suggested we all do a blurb about ourselves, background, qualifications etc. but some weren't happy about that so it didn't happen. I don't think the site is very user friendly in all honesty and it will be getting a major re-vamp soon. You need to go into the news section and use the search function there. It has not been custom and practice in recent years to notify members of resignations and appointments, we usually do that at our AGM but your comments are noted and I'll bring it up at our next meeting. Whilst neither Mr Smith not Mr Dingwall (both of whose resignations I called for at the time) have since resigned for whatever reasons; I am astonished to find that two of the three current Office Bearers are the same people who were involved in the 2010 financial mismanagement and subsequent cover up. I have considered rejoining the Trust, because despite all that has happened, I still believe in the principle of fan involvement/ownership/membership scheme; but could not possibly consider doing so whilst that is the situation. Edited February 4, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,651 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just to be pro-active I'd rather private emails were not posted on here thanks - not without the permission of all the recipients anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3909 04 0 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Whilst neither Mr Smith not Mr Dingwall (both of whose resignations I called for at the time) have since resigned for whatever reasons; I am astonished to find that two of the three current Office Bearers are the same people who were involved in the 2010 financial mismanagement and subsequent cover up. I have considered rejoining the Trust, because despite all that has happened, I still believe in the principle of fan involvement/ownership/membership scheme; but could not possibly consider doing so whilst that is the situation. This is exactly where I am also. I believe this latest row, with Mr Dingwall's frankly unbelievable claim to be the victim while simultaneously resigning, along with the advent of a new club-led supporters group initiative will end the RST as a meaningful body. While this is very unfortunate, when you consider the sheer volume of incidents and the extent of the bitterness between the warring parties, I would say the end has been on the cards for some time, I've previously acknowledged the efforts and hard work of those involved and I'm happy to do so again but I really cannot see where the Trust can possibly go from here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 This is exactly where I am also. I believe this latest row, with Mr Dingwall's frankly unbelievable claim to be the victim while simultaneously resigning, along with the advent of a new club-led supporters group initiative will end the RST as a meaningful body. While this is very unfortunate, when you consider the sheer volume of incidents and the extent of the bitterness between the warring parties, I would say the end has been on the cards for some time, I've previously acknowledged the efforts and hard work of those involved and I'm happy to do so again but I really cannot see where the Trust can possibly go from here. Club led initiative ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3909 04 0 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Club led initiative ? I believe so, mate. I'm told the board took a very dim view of the organised fan groups' efforts to oust them and are looking to set up an entirely new body. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.