[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

What parts of it are untrue?

I'm extremely busy at work at the moment so I'll try and post a reply to his comments in the next 24-48 hours.

Looks like you set the timescale Frankie.

[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

Given that it's over 48 hours since I asked, when will you be in a position to tell me?

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.

[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

It appears Mark Dingwall has posted a lengthy riposte against our statement on FF. I guess that will cover much of what was said at the SGM.

At first glance, I have to say much of what he says in the post is untrue and 'tendentious'. As such, I'll take some time to consider what he has written and decide whether or not to respond.

It is very disappointing that while our statement did not contain personal slights or insults, his does.

What parts of it are untrue?

Can anyone answer this?

Well considering I was the one who said parts of it are untrue, then I would be the one to tell you. And I will.

Given that it's over 48 hours since I asked, when will you be in a position to tell me?

[RST - Let it sink without trace]

The folks that resigned were level headed, intelligent and knew that a militant approach does not work. (imho of course).

As are the Board members who remain.

[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

Does anyone else find this thread to show a detailed description of what happened to the board of th RST in the past little while?

You have one side that is trying to put forth a certain explanation and understanding of events, and another side just trying to blow them out of the water. How the hell can the RST be an organization taken seriously when there is absolutely zero accountability or credible understanding of due process in decision making?

Anyway, a question for anyone that knows. What type of educational background is present on the current board? Are there individuals left with financial experience? Are their individuals with political experience?

Received this response via PM:

Of the 7 that left (and this is just a summary - they all have a multitude of talents!):

- one is the FD of a stockbroking firm

- one is a CA working as an FD for a large group of companies

- one is a CA who is a founding partner of an accountancy practice

- one has an incredible array of contacts and the ability to raise fantastic sums for the RST

- one is a superb webmaster with other outstanding abilities to contribute

- one is an independent financial adviser with excellent marketing skills

- one is a founder of the RST with huge experience and an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Trust and all things Rangers

It is seldom that you will find in any voluntary organisation like the RST such a wealth of talent and professional people willing to give of their time.

Can the RST replace those lost ? It may be that the RST is financially and intellectually worse off as a result of recent events.

-----

That is a huge loss.

And yet they can't answer the question you actually asked.

[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

It appears Mark Dingwall has posted a lengthy riposte against our statement on FF. I guess that will cover much of what was said at the SGM.

At first glance, I have to say much of what he says in the post is untrue and 'tendentious'. As such, I'll take some time to consider what he has written and decide whether or not to respond.

It is very disappointing that while our statement did not contain personal slights or insults, his does.

What parts of it are untrue?

Can anyone answer this?

[RST - Let it sink without trace]

The RST was a great idea, and it had some great people involved. However, there were also clearly some bad apples, and this element have managed to manouvere themselves into a position of influence.

I was never a member of the RST, and I always had my criticisms and concerns. However, I liked the idea and the fact that good work was done by the good members is undeniable. Now though, it is potentially a vehicle for an unsavoury element of our support to gain more exposure and arguably a degree of power.

Rather than the RST potentially being a positive body for it's members, the fans and the club in general......in my view, it can now only be a hinderance and cause future embarrassment.

I'd urge all non-members to not sign up. I'd urge all members to abandon ship ASAP. Let it sink, let it die and lets hope that in future other supporters bodies, old or new, can make a positive contribution.

It seems quite clear that the RST cannot be saved, certainly not in terms of offering representation that mirrors the majority of Rangers supporters.

There was a time where it could be argued that joining the RST could help move us forwards. Now I believe that it can only take us backwards.

What a truly pathetic post. Do you personally know the 20 people who form the RST Board and how are they 'bad apples'? Regardless of what you say the RST is very much alive and kicking and will not be going away. Give me your idea of what a supporters body can do to make a positive contribution and what kind of representation 'mirrors the majority of Rangers supporters'. What would have made you join the RST?

The way they conducted themselves over the last couple of months is exactly what would make people NOT join. Surely anyone could see that?

Yes but they were in existence for 5 years before this. The OP said it was a good idea, had good people on board yet he never joined. I simply asked him what would have made him join.

[RST - Let it sink without trace]

[What a truly pathetic post. Do you personally know the 20 people who form the RST Board and how are they 'bad apples'? Regardless of what you say the RST is very much alive and kicking and will not be going away. Give me your idea of what a supporters body can do to make a positive contribution and what kind of representation 'mirrors the majority of Rangers supporters'. What would have made you join the RST?

Bonjour Monsieur 3 Posts. Been a member (lurker) since January, but only now decide to jump in when the RST is on the rocks. Hmmmm

So you'd rather talk about my post count than answer my question. Hmmmm.

[RST - Let it sink without trace]

The RST was a great idea, and it had some great people involved. However, there were also clearly some bad apples, and this element have managed to manouvere themselves into a position of influence.

I was never a member of the RST, and I always had my criticisms and concerns. However, I liked the idea and the fact that good work was done by the good members is undeniable. Now though, it is potentially a vehicle for an unsavoury element of our support to gain more exposure and arguably a degree of power.

Rather than the RST potentially being a positive body for it's members, the fans and the club in general......in my view, it can now only be a hinderance and cause future embarrassment.

I'd urge all non-members to not sign up. I'd urge all members to abandon ship ASAP. Let it sink, let it die and lets hope that in future other supporters bodies, old or new, can make a positive contribution.

It seems quite clear that the RST cannot be saved, certainly not in terms of offering representation that mirrors the majority of Rangers supporters.

There was a time where it could be argued that joining the RST could help move us forwards. Now I believe that it can only take us backwards.

What a truly pathetic post. Do you personally know the 20 people who form the RST Board and how are they 'bad apples'? Regardless of what you say the RST is very much alive and kicking and will not be going away. Give me your idea of what a supporters body can do to make a positive contribution and what kind of representation 'mirrors the majority of Rangers supporters'. What would have made you join the RST?

[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

TB:

I received a copy of the official minute of the meeting and also obviously spoke to the people who were there. Both the minute and the people who were there say Mark Dingwall proposed the committee.

The rules regarding meeting with the club have always been set in stone and followed - I don't know of anyone who has met the club alone.

So for clarification Frankie, are you saying that the former Chairman of the RST did not attend meetings with SDM, Bain and Jim Templeton?

[Statement From RST Resigned Board Members]

It appears Mark Dingwall has posted a lengthy riposte against our statement on FF. I guess that will cover much of what was said at the SGM.

At first glance, I have to say much of what he says in the post is untrue and 'tendentious'. As such, I'll take some time to consider what he has written and decide whether or not to respond.

It is very disappointing that while our statement did not contain personal slights or insults, his does.

What parts of it are untrue?