cooperonthewing

What is it you are unclear about? He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself? The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress. Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning. Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil. I agree with open and civil disussion. I await answers to my (reasonable) questions. I agree coop, questions are fair and should be addressed. I hope they will be.

What is it you are unclear about? He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself? The RST as it is now does have a right to defend itself, agreed. We welcome decent discussion on RM and through this hopefully make some kind of progress. Frankie has always taken time to address questions, which he has answered, sometimes against aggresive questioning. Lets keep the discussion open and above all, civil. I agree with open and civil disussion. I await answers to my (reasonable) questions.

What is it you are unclear about? He has already said he is a board member of the Trust. Frankie said parts of Dingwall's statement were untrue. That statement was not only a response from him personally, but on behalf of the existing board. So as a board member he is seeking Frankie's answers on where the board are misleading its members so he can argue their case. Frankie quite rightly is held in high regard on here so when he makes such claims then it is going to be believed by a good proportion of this site. Surely the RST has a right to defend itself? Jimenez, you are correct. The fact that the majority of MD's post was based on fact (and I will make e-mails available to you if required) means that porkies are being told. I wonder why. The reason I am offering this to you is that I know you are really confused by what is happening.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation. For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman. I am sorry if I come across as impatient. Frankie agreed to answer my question within 24-48 hours, I gave him that. It's now about 64 hours and I am still willing to wait. I have offered a comprimise whereby he cuts and pastes MD's post and highlights the sections that are untrue. I hope he takes that opportunity. I don't think you've really seen my point. I'm not calling your actions inappropriate, I understand completely that certain people will be impatient for answers regarding MD's post. I just don't find it truthful you have nothing to do with him. I also find it doubtful he won't have signed up to see or dispute these accusations for himself. I didn't say I had nothing do do with him. He is a fellow RST Board member so obviously I have contact with him in that respect. What I am saying is that I have no particular loyalty to any individuals on the RST Board. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members which is why I find the statement from the former Board members so offensive.

He's eager for a reply. I can fully understand why. Frankie's posted a lot in this thread, although why the topic regarding Mr. Dingwall's only and especially? I can understand anyones interest but his eagerness seems a little exaggerated more so than anyone elses. Because Frankie said most of it was untrue. I've asked him what was untrue and he has failed to respond except to tell us how busy he is. He has however found the time to respond to the people who praise him.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation. For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman. I am sorry if I come across as impatient. Frankie agreed to answer my question within 24-48 hours, I gave him that. It's now about 64 hours and I am still willing to wait. I have offered a comprimise whereby he cuts and pastes MD's post and highlights the sections that are untrue. I hope he takes that opportunity.

Here it is: The members are now back in control of the organisation. For those who requested it.

Known Mark for many years and not blind to his flaws. But this image which has been portrayed of him is untrue. And if any Rangers Fan had a hand in the Daily Record character assassination of him, then they should be deeply ashamed of themselves. I refuse to believe any bear would go running to the press, least of all that gutter rhag. I said so at the time. The threads were on here and FF at the time. The Daily Rhebel wouldn't have had to dig deep to take a swipe. You'd be surprised. Revenge is a very emotive subject.

Firstly, can I say that I am not a regular poster on FF, in fact I haven't posted there for a while. I'm sure you'd agree that when derogatory details are posted about you and your colleagues, your first instinct is to defend. I first asked a question around 9.30 am on Monday. It is now 12.29 am on Thursday and I haven't had a reply, despite replies being given to several other posters (most who had complimented the individual in question). I also posted 7 questions regarding the 'Statement' (which again hasn't received a response) I don't think this is paranoia. I have not asked difficult questions (or perhaps I have) but I have received no answers. I can totally understand your desire to side with Frankie on these issues as you don't know me. I know him to be a man of integrity and honour. He has been sold a story here which is not based on fact but what others want him to believe. I too was raised in the BB tradition of loyalty, I am loyal to the RST.

I think only Frankie or possibly contacts could answer your questions. The rest of us are out the loop and can only take educated guesses on who or what to believe. I know but two of them are currently viewing this thread.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation. A few senior RST board members have recently stated that if people cared for the RST they would now let it move on without further mudslinging etc. (not the exact words but I'm sure you know what I mean) The RST now have 7 or 8 new board members (some decent blokes amongst them) and it is time for the trust to move on to the next chapter. And a few have also said that if the people who resigned had cared for the RST they would not have released such a statement. Im glad they did release a statement because the RST members like myself deserved some sort of explanation. And im glad Dingwall released a counter statement explaning the other side. Id much rather have all this debate atm then deafening silence from all involved. Having everything discussed out in the open is restoring my lost faith in the trust after weeks of nothing. I agree that the members should have been informed but the way it was done there was one resignation every week or so, some gave reasons others didn't. Some cited 'a split in the Board' but as we were unaware of this 'split' there was nothing we could say about it. The 'split' was a perception rather than a reality. We thought the best way of addressing this was to call the SGM to get things out in the open. Although 9 of the remaining Board attended, none of the 7 who resigned did. These are the facts. Maybe you will be able to attend our AGM (date to be announced) as i'm sure the subject will come up there also. The RST will strive to communicate with it's members much more frequently in future. We realise that we have performed poorly in the past regarding this and will address the issue.

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a time limit. I'll do so when I get a chance. While you wait, maybe you could read through some of the posts already provided which explain a few of the more 'tendentious' stuff in MD's FF thread? Or maybe even try giving your thoughts on the issues in our statement? Or are all the questions one way again? Issues in your statement. Perhaps if it was more precise and gave specific examples. You mention there being a 'leak' and that person is still there. I'm making the assumption that you knew who is was so why didn't you do something about it? It couldn't be very hard to plant some false information to this person only and catch them out. How many 'negative, political behind-the-scenes briefings' took place? When did they take place and where? How many attended? Formation of Special Tasks Commitee - was this to restrict and control or was it to ensure that when people were representing the Trust they did so according to the rules? Attempts to release incorrect information when addressing the resignations of their former colleagues - surely you were able to refute this then if the information was incorrect. Dismissing and denigrating the efforts of the resigned members - who did this and in what way? We have documented and commented upon the issues regarding the split in the board however the remaining board members have failed to release this disappointing but serious information to the membership - wasn't that partially the reason for calling the SGM? Just a few questions before the more difficult ones come along. Can anyone answer this? Doesn't have to be Frankie.

If you want more involved mate PM me. We can always use another volunteer.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation. A few senior RST board members have recently stated that if people cared for the RST they would now let it move on without further mudslinging etc. (not the exact words but I'm sure you know what I mean) The RST now have 7 or 8 new board members (some decent blokes amongst them) and it is time for the trust to move on to the next chapter. And a few have also said that if the people who resigned had cared for the RST they would not have released such a statement.

That vision has not changed despite what may be circulating. I know there are a number of RST members on this site and the main reason I have been posting is to get the other side across. Serious allegations have been made yet it appears that no-one can substantiate them by presenting facts. MD's post gave dates and times where e-mails were sent - facts that can be proved. And that's absolutely fine, we like to hear the facts from 'the other side' as you say. Glad to hear it. This site has been used to promote a series of allegations aimed at 12 RST Board members who didn't resign. One of is being accused of leaking information (it'll be interesting to see if that continues ) the others are being accused of holding 'negative, political behind-the-scenes meetings, wanting a militant approach (none of which are true) and voting 9-2 (not 8-2) in favour of a committee to 'restrict and control activities' rather than it's intended purpose which was to oversee our activities and to ensure we were operating within the 'rules'. We are, after all, accountable to our members.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

That vision has not changed despite what may be circulating. I know there are a number of RST members on this site and the main reason I have been posting is to get the other side across. Serious allegations have been made yet it appears that no-one can substantiate them by presenting facts. MD's post gave dates and times where e-mails were sent - facts that can be proved.

Maybe they're doing something in the real world And yet still logged onto this site. I believe I am the only other ex-board member on this thread so I suppose you are pointing the finger at me. There are a few things I want to point out. The first is that Frankie does not need any help and secondly it is really disappointing that folk that Frankie probably knows well are coming on here trying to point score. Further to this board members of the RST are saying that everyone should move on and give the RST a chance to recover. In all seriousness I think you should do the same. I will do so if someone will answer my questions.

No need for the shit stirring or the impatience As you'll agree, Frankie has defended and discussed his corner well through all these RST threads to anyone that has a decent point. Do you mean a decent point that suited him? Would you not agree that I have made decent points in asking for proof of what was in the 'Statement' and asking which parts of Mark Dingwall's post was untrue. Surely they are key questions in this whole debate.

Not really. His time has come Yes there time has indeed come......... Jesus wept. To be fair, I think he meant 'their'.

Maybe they're doing something in the real world And yet still logged onto this site. It was Frankie who set his own deadline. Had he not been on the site most of the week I'd have agreed that cooperonthewing was hassling him. But he's managed to react to an awful lot of posts on this thread but not those ones. Funny that. I mean for my first point re the untrue parts of MDs statement he could simply cut and paste the article and put the untrue bits in bold. How long would that take? It might take a bit longer to answer my 7 questions though.

Maybe they're doing something in the real world And yet still logged onto this site.

Dunno JR. I don't reckon that's Frankie's style, don't know about cooperonthewing. For the record I'm just trying to get the truth out. The 'Statement' was full of allegations that were very damaging towards the Board members remaining. In addition, Frankie said most of what MD posted was untrue. I've asked (repeatedly) which parts were untrue and I'm still waiting. I also asked some pertinent questions relating to these allegations and again no answers. Some people may start to wonder. I hope you don't think I was having go. You are asking reasonable questions and I look forward to Frankie's answers, but you do seem to be hassling him slightly when he has made it clear he's busy elsewhere. But as JR says, I'm sure he'll give a full and frank answer when he can. No I don't think you're having a go. I will hassle Frankie no more. Although I may comment if the silence continues. Some of his fellow ex-Board members have been on and won't even help him out.

Dunno JR. I don't reckon that's Frankie's style, don't know about cooperonthewing. For the record I'm just trying to get the truth out. The 'Statement' was full of allegations that were very damaging towards the Board members remaining. In addition, Frankie said most of what MD posted was untrue. I've asked (repeatedly) which parts were untrue and I'm still waiting. I also asked some pertinent questions relating to these allegations and again no answers. Some people may start to wonder. I'm sure (based on Frankie's posting history) the answers your seeking are forthcoming. One thing I have noticed about him is he may not get back to a question or a point made right away, but he will get to it. However, and perhaps strictly a little off-topic but at the risk of saturating the Bear's Den with RST threads I'll ask here - could one of you clearly knowledgeable gentlemen please answer my earlier question about the future of the Trust, it's direction and the means in which it's planning to get there? The RST aims have always been supporters representaton at Board level at the Club and wider ownership of shares of the Club. There is a meeting of the new Board very soon but I believe the intention is to carry on meeting the Club, promote Gersave as a method of wider share ownership and defend the Club and it's fans if necessary from media slurs. One thing I would like to see personally like to see is a mechanism where we appeal to the wider support. There is now a PR professional on the Board so hopefully things might improve in that direction.

Dunno JR. I don't reckon that's Frankie's style, don't know about cooperonthewing. For the record I'm just trying to get the truth out. The 'Statement' was full of allegations that were very damaging towards the Board members remaining. In addition, Frankie said most of what MD posted was untrue. I've asked (repeatedly) which parts were untrue and I'm still waiting. I also asked some pertinent questions relating to these allegations and again no answers. Some people may start to wonder.