BEARGER 1,830 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Apparently rbr is a member, see #488 above. I can read, did you not notice I thanked him for his post? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) I asked the Membership Secretary for that information on numerous occasions but never received a straight answer. The membership numbers did not match the membership income in the accounts. There was always an issue about this because lapsed members were still counted as members until the following AGM which could be six months or more later, at least that is what I was told. I think someone didn't fully understand the accounting of it. the share capital disclosed in the accounts would show you the number of members at the balance sheet date. I worked closely with the Board member responsible but to my knowledge, the Gersave accounts were never properly reconciled during my time in office and the auditors did not regard it as part of their remit. For the avoidance of doubt I am not alleging any monetary irregularity here although I had to redraft the Rules to match the way the scheme was being run, rather than vice versa. There must have been irregularity if the Gersave cash could not be tied into records and by you saying that they could not be reconciled is a serious allegation. I'm surprised that the rules were redrafted to allow for this rather than the board taking steps to ensure that the cash was reconciled. Edited February 21, 2016 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I think someone didn't fully understand the accounting of it. the share capital disclosed in the accounts would show you the number of members at the balance sheet date. There must have been irregularity if the Gersave cash could not be tied into records and by you saying that they could not be reconciled is a serious allegation. I'm surprised that the rules were redrafted to allow for this rather than the board taking steps to ensure that the cash was reconciled. The key phrase is 'to my knowledge'. The auditors got the Gersave bank statements and a bank reconciliation was done. I kept a spreadsheet which was updated monthly showing exactly how much each person contributed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,266 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The key phrase is 'to my knowledge'. The auditors got the Gersave bank statements and a bank reconciliation was done. I kept a spreadsheet which was updated monthly showing exactly how much each person contributed. In that case it's an easy question to answer , how many members contribute to buy rangers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 In that case it's an easy question to answer , how many members contribute to buy rangers BR was set up in a different way from Gersave but let's just say that the figure that BH gave isn't far off. That would make sense as I know who it came from. It's just over 1100. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Who is the RF representative on here that you have issue with? Most certainly you...as if you didn't know already 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) I'm not a political person far from it, when I see Cameron on tv I squirm. I'm a simple Rangers fan who follows the 'Gers...then I read on a Rangers forum posters having disagreement with each other on a 'Better together' type hype. Give yourselves a break ffs folks! Edit: If Richard Gough makes a change of any sort to do with connection of club and fans then I'm a horny 19 year old. Edited February 22, 2016 by Bearman 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 The key phrase is 'to my knowledge'. The auditors got the Gersave bank statements and a bank reconciliation was done. I kept a spreadsheet which was updated monthly showing exactly how much each person contributed. Thanks for the clarification. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Most certainly you...as if you didn't know already Well I wasn't a rep at the time and I stand by what I said to AH. Misinformation is the enemy in my experience online. Ghost stories become facts within a few posts. If I see deliberate (imo) misinformation about myself or something I'm involved with I tend to challenge it (though some people are better ignored in my experience as they aren't interested in the correct info). So I take issue with you having issue with me 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I think someone didn't fully understand the accounting of it. the share capital disclosed in the accounts would show you the number of members at the balance sheet date. There must have been irregularity if the Gersave cash could not be tied into records and by you saying that they could not be reconciled is a serious allegation. I'm surprised that the rules were redrafted to allow for this rather than the board taking steps to ensure that the cash was reconciled. Obviously this needs further clarification. Theoretically you are correct about the share capital but since shares were not being issued i.e. the £1 shares in the Society, it did not reflect the membership numbers and neither did the income from membership fees which was partly due to the incidence of an unknown number of life members and the reason I have already stated about lapsed members. I don't doubt that Christine kept a record of the income; however it is a fact that the Scheme itself was not audited. In fact I raised that specific issue. As I said, to my recollection the Board Member responsible for the scheme (not Christine) did not or could reconcile the total with the amounts accruing to each member although I asked him numerous times to do so and as a result I recall at least one occasion when Christine had to do her best to assess the total for a particular member who had to be repaid. No doubt she will confirm that fact. The Rules were not redrafted for that purpose, you have misunderstood. The Rules were redrafted to cover at least two situations that I can recall - refunding members other than on death and not buying shares as money accrued. In these areas (there may have been some others but these are the ones I remember of the top of my head) the practice differed from the Rules. I said at the time that either the practice had to change or the Rules had to be changed; the Board chose the latter course. I wrote the new Rules which were then adopted by the Board. I trust this clarifies. 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.