Hildy 0 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 "One David Murray" Remember this? In the better times under his tenure he was looked up to and idolised as though he was incapable of erring. The support was entirely comfortable in forelock-tugging mode. It believed in the man to such an extent that dissent was viewed as intolerable. Murray had the support in the palm of his hand - to question him was to be disloyal - and anti-Rangers. This was the Rangers support at its shameful worst. This was the Rangers support cowed and obedient. Sir David Murray was God. Dissent was blasphemy. One David Murray. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Go for it mate. Perhaps much of what I refer to will be going over old ground – particularly on this forum where Im aware some of the members on here were personally involved – but I think failing to address or revisit some of these incidents would fail to recognise why that “devaluing” has had such a permanence about it. I’m also aware that there are posters, particularly online, who have a personal dislike for Mark Dingwall or the RST, I think at times they themselves have provided ammunition that criticism of the RST was solely down to personal differences with him – and they have not helped matters, in fact they have probably contributed to a failure to get at the root of the problem. In my opinion the resignation of Alan Harris, as Secretary on the 12th August, 2010, was a severely damaging blow, due to the financial irregularities he alluded to, at the heart of his resignation. The situation was further exacerbated by attempts to discredit and vilify Mr Harris. People can quote definitions of loans – or whatever else – as much as they like, for those of us familiar with committees or charities the situation where a considerable sum of money, which is meant to be furthering the aims and ambitions of an organisation, is actually sitting in a member’s account is quite simply – totally untenable. (Particularly in lieu of the timescales involved which I understand were September 2008 to August 2010) Instead of attempting to justify or deflect blame for this unedifying incident onto Mr Harris, the RST should have acknowledged the considerable failings of governance, and as matter of both honour and protecting the reputation of the organisation - I feel Mr Dingwall should have tendered his resignation from the board immediately – all in all a damage limitation exercise. I have read on various forums since this incident, criticism that Mr Harris was a stickler for propriety and doing everything by the book – I would suggest that for an organisation entrusted with the money of others, and which in due course would seek investment from fans in the various schemes they would run – I would respectfully suggest that Mr Harris’ ensuring that everything is above board and done by the book is a considerable plus rather than a negative. Instead of resigning however Mr Dingwall continued to rise in prominence within the RST and it was apparently the militant direction he wished to take the Trust which was the cause of the numerous board resignations of Malcolm McNiven, Scott McMillan and fellow board members Callum Renton, Derek Howie, Stuart Franklin and Andy McGowan. Now recently we have serious allegations of e-mail hacking, accompanied by more board resignations – not being au fait with the full circumstances, and considering the severity and consequences of the allegations being made – Im not going to comment further on this matter. For people willing to rise above the petulant tribalism of personal dislike or criticism of an organisation these circumstances still merit considerable cause for concern – perhaps the RST need to realise that’s where a great many of us are coming from. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 in the interests of balance what actually happened was mark failed to pay for tickets he had ordered for an rst dinner for a couple of years due to financial problems he was having. if people want to try destroy the rst for that....... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 in the interests of balance what actually happened was mark failed to pay for tickets he had ordered for an rst dinner for a couple of years due to financial problems he was having. if people want to try destroy the rst for that....... (1) Why would there need to be balance - or have I posted something which you are suggesting is infactual ? (2) Why would anyone want to destroy the RST ? Im addressing why I feel there is a permanence about the devaluing referred to earlier . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (1) Why would there need to be balance - or have I posted something which you are suggesting is infactual ? (2) Why would anyone want to destroy the RST ? Im addressing why I feel there is a permanence about the devaluing referred to earlier . because you gave no account of what actually happened. don't try to tell me some people don't want to. why they want to? petty jealousy imho. but who knows. people can make up their own minds but only with all the facts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 because you gave no account of what actually happened. don't try to tell me some people don't want to. why they want to? petty jealousy imho. but who knows. people can make up their own minds but only with all the facts. To be honest GS - that kind of attitude does little to instill confidence. Everything I have posted is factual - but you seem to be offering a plea in mitigation that the circumstances leading up to the financial irregularity - somehow justifies it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 is anything i have posted nonfactual? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 is anything i have posted nonfactual? I think it was you who suggested there needed to be an element of "balance" - to the facts I posted - I was asked for my views and duly obliged. I think though your comments have served to highlight why there was, and continues to be, a problem with devaluation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 you presented one mans standpoint on a situation(undescribed). i presented the facts of the situation. people can make up there own mind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 because you gave no account of what actually happened. don't try to tell me some people don't want to. why they want to? petty jealousy imho. but who knows. people can make up their own minds but only with all the facts. You have failed to give all the facts as well. The RST as an organisation prevented the incident from being discussed at the proper time at its AGM, resulting in the membership not knowing the facts, and the RST accounts not giving the required disclosure. Have some people given the issue too much prominence? Yes, but some have also not given it enough importance. We saw the attempted discrediting of more ex-board members yesterday, which isn't good to see, and is not in the club's best interests. 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.