Lisburnranger

Would you suggest that he had no reason or motive when posting?

I wasn't on the board at the time and I don't know the man so I genuinely don't know. I'd be interested to hear why he wrote what he did because I can't see any benefit for him.

By the time he wrote his post on Gersnet, the auditors had already ruled that the monies due were not loans. He may have genuinely believed that for accounting purposes they should have been treated as loans but the auditors disagreed, and ultimately it's their opinion that counts. Whether inadvertently or deliberate, he was wrong. Posting on Gersnet was never going to change that

I wasn't around at the time so I wasn't involved in the decision. I don't think anyone involved at the time would have thought that 3 years on it would still such a big topic though. I have no doubts that the board members' made what they felt was the best decision, and did so in good faith.

I wasn't on the board at the time and I don't know the man so I genuinely don't know. I'd be interested to hear why he wrote what he did because I can't see any benefit for him.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We want to engage with supporters and answer questions that they have. There are fans out there who (you might struggle to believe this) who don't agree with us and don't support us at this time. The challenge for us is to change the minds of these people through our actions. Serving legal papers on fellow supporters would do nothing to further the aims of the RST. Sure, we might have got a positive verdict against AH, but we would then appear as bully boys picking on supporters and that is the last thing we want. We will continue to challenge those who spread inaccurate and untruthful stories, whether by accident or deliberate act but we will do it through the communication channels we have with our members and the wider support.

Re. Harris. The only person who knows whether Harris was mistaken or deliberately misrepresented the facts, is Mr Harris himself. Nevertheless, he took the decision to publicly accuse RST board members of impropriety despite having no evidence of this. It is a fairly logical conclusion to reach, that he chose to do this in pursuit of his own agenda. I don't know how much clearer we can make this.

I can accept that. I was trying to highlight the fact that this is a regular accusation but nobody has ever reported it

You don't need to be the victim of a crime to report it. If you have evidence of a crime being committed the police are duty bound to investigate it. Just for the record, I'm not trying to defend MD because I don't know the facts involved here, but I am minded to take things with a pinch of salt. I have read accusations of theft on here many many times yet I have never heard of anyone actually reporting it to the police. People seem to like to throw the accusations about without taking the common sense step.

I don't know anything about the fanzine issue you mentioned but since the RST don't sell a fanzine and Mark does I am going to assume your complaint is to do with Mark and his business rather than the RST. It's quite a serious accusation you make and you clearly feel strongly about it so I must ask whether you have reported it to the police? The issue of theft is black and white unlike the cheque issue.

We don't represent the club, we represent our members. Having the resources to purchase a season ticket is no reflection on an individuals ability to serve on the board. As a support we are a broad church and board members are judged by their actions in their role on the board.

I honestly don't know if all board members are season ticket holders. I don't think it matters. All board members make a large time commitment when they get involved. Not sure why you were pissed off at the reference to Rangers Media if you knew who had asked the questions

The questions came from Rangers Media that is why they are referenced in the answers.

It's not meant to be exonerating. Nobody is denying the fact that cheques were bounced and that shouldn't have happened. It is the case though that MD acted in good faith and whilst doing the wrong thing, he did it for the right reasons. To describe the outstanding monies as loans however, is just plain wrong. They were in effect unpaid invoices and the board at the time chose to allow MD the time to pay the monies due. Only one person tried to describe them as loans, and the auditors disagreed with that opinion. I wasn't on the board when all this happened and I was interested to know the full story. Experience has taught me that it is always best to get both sides of the story. I sent Allan Harris a message via LinkedIn mainly to see if after 3 years he was still of the same opinion. I know he got it as he has viewed my profile, but no response has been forthcoming. From the information available I see nothing which makes me doubt the version given by those who were on the RST board at that time. AH's concerns are all centred around "free loans" which wasn't the case.

You could go round in circles forever on this if you really wanted to. Bouncing a cheque is not an offence. Writing a cheque you know you can't cover is. Saying with any certainty that he did or didn't know he had the funds is nigh on impossible. As far as Allan Harris goes, he was given the opportunity this week to state his position and he chose not to make any comment

The OP says he will send the questions on Friday. RST board are aware of the questions and are happy to provide answers

That's simply not true. The Rangers Unite proposal painted a fantastic picture of how supporter ownership would work through a membership scheme. It was well researched and very credible. The major problem was in how to acquire the club. There was nowhere near as much thought or planning in this area. The RST brought a functional acquisition plan to the table which dovetailed very nicely with the RU proposal. The plan was for a joint committee of RU and RST members to take it forward. It was at this point that certain people from RU started creating problems. On a committee of 3 RST members and 3 RU members it would be impossible for the RST to take it over and turn it into an RST project. By walking away like they did, they turned it into an RST project. RU was a good proposal run by good bears which I firmly believe was hijacked by some for their own ends

I was involved with Rangers Unite back when they first started. At the outset, it involved good passionate bears with no agenda. Shane and were involved in a couple of conference calls and the focus was purely on promoting supporter representation. That sadly changed and it evolved into an anti Dingwall/RST movement. It's no coincidence that this was around the time that Alex and others started talking about a money man in America who was going to help underwrite a proposal. This was clearly Duffy, and along with one or two others, the shift in focus was driven. It was at that point I walked. Alex Thompson was the guy who started Rangers Unite and is someone I have a lot of respect for. He drove the Rangers Unite project a long way in a short space of time, and I genuinely believe he has no agenda. Unfortunately, I believe he has been heavily influenced by those who do. In the summer of last year Rangers Unite and the RST had a joint proposal that was both credible and viable. The poison spread by Duffy and one or two others damaged that proposal and destroyed the credibility of Rangers Unite.

For the record. RST is not the name previously mentioned.

You're not willing to listen to any answers though, are you? We are more than happy to answer questions about what we do. It does get a bit tiresome responding to trolls though. You and I had a pretty good debate a couple of weeks ago where I answered your questions as best I could and you made some very constructive points. You seem to have reverted back to sniping away for effect which is quite disappointing

You'd have to ask Mark why he didn't resign. As long as all board members accept that majority rules then there is no problem with differing opinions. It promotes healthy debate. Just because a vote goes against you, it doesn't automatically mean you should resign. The RFFF voted on whether to back season book renewals and the majority ruled. It was not a unanimous vote. Do you think if we currently had a board member elected by the support and accountable to the support, that we would be as much in the dark as we are now? Right now there are factions within the boardroom pursuing their own agendas. A supporter elected board member would ensure we would be viewing the current situation with clarity and facts as opposed to agenda driven leaks to newspapers. What would you suggest a board member does if he loses a vote? Other than accept it or resign, what other option is there? I'm not defending Mark Dingwall. I'm defending the RST. It is you who is either unable or unwilling to see that they are not one and the same

Your argument is based entirely on your perception that Mark Dingwall is the RST. He is a board member who has 1 vote just like anyone else. If the majority of the board vote against him then he can either just accept it or he can resign. Just like any other democratic organisation. It is not a case of anyone doing as they are told.

That RFFF vote was not unanimous Why would the RST be invited to a RFFF meeting?

Drew has represented the RSA on the RST board for some time now. A good guy

Edmiston Drive has been posting my photo for ages :-)