Lisburnranger
-
Posts
211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Lisburnranger
-
-
Lisburn
You spoke of Harris' agenda in a post earlier. Can I ask what was his agenda ?
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.
-
Surely there would be benefit if what he wrote was the truth?
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
-
Understand as to where you are coming from, but you are a Trust so you should have gone for him if he was indeed lying. Simple to explain as to why you did this to protect the name of the Trust............I could go on and give the main reason why people think the name is tarnished.........but will stay clear of 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.
-
Using your fair logic what would you conclude was Harris's agenda?
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.
-
My reply would be...........why did you guys not serve legal papers on 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.
-
Bud I said from the off well done and said well done when they replied..............but various people are finding holes in their replies especially re one of my particular questions you included......list their successes over the 10 and a bit years...........this has been torn to shreds by people not ranting or raving or calling names........but by reasonable means. MY view is that they struggled to find any and come up with the rather poor excuses they have classed as successes.
Also their reply about the guy Harris, they never answered the direct question was he lying they merely dodged it and made out the guy was making it up and to prove this we have had the usual poster on singing their praises and saying it's up to Harris to respond.
It's not up to Harris he made public his concerns in a letter so if he is lying they should have acted upon this, not try and turn the tables on Harris, also this Independent Legal team that they got to look into everything re money and dingwall.........how was this legal team , after all they wanted to know the names of the mystery panel that was looking into our Club.
I have read and reread the replies and have to say, I think they may be a stranger to the truth in many of them.
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.
-
In Scotland Lisburn they will only take the complaint from the victim. In the absence of a victim the Procurator FIscal will act as complainant on their behalf.
I can accept that. I was trying to highlight the fact that this is a regular accusation but nobody has ever reported it
-
No one has stolen off me, so I can't report anyone.
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.
-
See the last sentence of my post above.
He's nothing short of a thieving scumbag and until he is removed from the RST, the trust will amount to nothing.
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.
-
Get back to me when you know. I'd like to think if they represent our Club they could invest a few hundred quid to watch our team play at Ibrox like 38,000 of us did last year. I judge people by their actions, not by internet posts.
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 know. I read the original thread. Can you answer the STH question?
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
-
I'm not into the RST. They don't represent my love of Rangers. They are free to grow and represent their members as far as I am concerned. I am pissed off at the reference to Rangers Media though. Sounds like a sly dig. A wee question of my own .... does Mark have a season ticket? Do all the Board members?
The questions came from Rangers Media that is why they are referenced in the answers.
-
I concur with the 1st part Lisburn - though its hardly exonerating.
I wasnt aware of the second part re Harris - when did all this happen ?
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.
-
It is neither saddening nor uplifting. This whole exercise was driven by a desire to get to the truth - and I think both Nambian and the RST deserve credit for their efforts.
If an action has been taken which constitutes fraud - and that has not yet been clarified - then the only sadness would be if it was swept away in this attempt to establish the truth.
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
-
OP have you sent these by PM to RST or just put them on this thread?
The OP says he will send the questions on Friday. RST board are aware of the questions and are happy to provide answers
-
First, it's RangersUnite. The joint proposal ended up RST way or no way.
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.
-
Right, I'm going to say the following only once:
If people wish their names to be aired on here, they can do it themselves. We don't 'out' posters, so please do not name them on the forum. I have no idea if the name I've seen is correct or not, but we're not going to be making this personal. Debate the issues properly or not at all.
For the record. RST is not the name previously mentioned.
-
Welcome back , so when will you get round to answering my posts............btw you really should hide COI tore you to shreds when he provided you with proof that you lied earlier.
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
-
In which case, what is the benefit of a sole fans' representative on the RFC board? As you said, he will just be "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." How will that help the support?
Which also raises the question: why didn't Mr Dingwall resign from either the RFFF or the RST after backing completely opposing points of view from each body? He must have either believed renewing was right or withholding renewals was right, unless he held both opinions "renew STs but don't renew STs" simultaneously.
Incidentally, have you any idea how weak both your and RST's defence of MD appears? Just thought you should know.
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
-
So the RST board, featuring Mark Dingwall, called for fans to delay buying STs exactly two days after the RFFF, including Secretary Mark Dingwall, called on fans to renew STs. Exactly as I said happened.
And all the while poor wee Mark was only doing as he was told.
Yep, fan representation on the Rangers board is the way forward, no question. Imagine how much an RST member could achieve by doing what his fellow board members tell him then saying it wasn't his fault?
Thank you for the clarification.
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.
-
Oh really? In that case tell us about the following RST statement, released on Friday June 22nd.
RST Board Advice to Members Friday, 22 June 2012 11:56 There are a number of major issues facing the club and the support at present, not least of which is the decision on when, if at all, to renew season tickets. Given recent revelations over the failure of season ticket money to be ring-fenced as the Chief Executive Charles Green had indicated, we feel there is no other option open to the support than to delay payment until it is clear that proper corporate banking facilities are in place and supporters cash is protected from liquidators.
The RST board has serious concerns with regard to Charles Green's business model and his ability to take the club forward. It remains unclear whether he will be able to raise the £30m investment pledged at the outset of his bid and with continued speculation that the club has no corporate banking facilities our fears are only increasing. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Chief Executive and Chairman to allay these fears with guarantees and hard evidence of investment and secure the relevant banking facility required for a business the size of Rangers.
Two days prior to this, the RFFF released the following statement after a meeting which Mark Dingwall attended:
"The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund today met with Charles Green and Malcolm Murray.
During a meeting lasting three and a half hours the members of the committee sought clarity from both individuals on a number of issues.
By the conclusion of the meeting the RFFF had received satisfaction on the future security of the property assets, forward flow funding and the ring fencing of season tickets for the good of the club.
The RFFF would encourage fans to renew their season tickets at this time to demonstrate our support for our manager Ally McCoist his management team and our players.
It is time for our great support to show solidarity for the club that binds and bonds us together as Rangers fans.
End"
You were saying?
That RFFF vote was not unanimous
So rst where not invited or did they decline to attend?
Why would the RST be invited to a RFFF meeting?
-
Drew Roberston is an RST board member, not a bad thing IMO but I'm sure others won't see it that way.
Drew has represented the RSA on the RST board for some time now. A good guy
-
So you're close to the mole?
Thought we'd got rid......
Edmiston Drive has been posting my photo for ages :-)
Answers To the Questions Posed to RST
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
Would you suggest that he had no reason or motive when posting?