Jump to content

Statement released by former RST Secretary


boss

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 719
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry i thought it was posted in reply to the statement released by Harris besides all that is common knowledge

My point being, they kept all this stuff quiet for two years, but have decided to come clean after being exposed....that's not the way these things should work but often is when you are caught doing something wrong...

I can't believe i am actually surprised that they have convinced themselves they have done nothing wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i thought it was posted in reply to the statement released by Harris besides all that is common knowledge

There's also no mention of the Student Loans or the loaning of PDQ machines, which if I remember correctly, is illegal as per the agreement they will have with the company who provide the machines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They posted it as there financial dealings have been brought to peoples attention, otherwise they would have kept there mouth shut...just like they did for the last two years when bouncing cheques were being written to pay off debts to the RST.

Still no explanation as to why the debt didn't appear on the RST books for the last two years..... :sherlock:

Share then

Could it have been that the RST's clique thought they might be above answering to Trust members?

Could it have been that the RST's clique didn't want people to know about it?

Could it have been that the RST's clique knew they handled it badly at the AGM and are seeking to shift the blame?

Posed as questions, but all three would be mostly true imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also no mention of the Student Loans or the loaning of PDQ machines, which if I remember correctly, is illegal as per the agreement they will have with the company who provide the machines.

No your right some of the pertinent bones of contention still remain unanswered, was the PDQ machine incident not semi explained away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No your right some of the pertinent bones of contention still remain unanswered, was the PDQ machine incident not semi explained away?

You can't semi-explain things like this.

PDQ machines are for the sole use of the owner of the machines as per the agreement with the company.

Illegal use of these machines by a 3rd party is..............................well.........................illegal as far as I'm aware.

I also think any transactions which go through them for charity could also attract tax rebates as per Govt. Laws covering charities.

Did anyone receive any rebates due to payments going through these machines?

Did the charity which used these machines receive tax reliefs?

So many questions..........................

I do a lot of work for charity and every donation we receive gets topped up by the tax man, we need the charities official reg. number to do this and we cannot collect money outwith these stringent laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An EGM should be called imo

Probably, but would it do any good?

I think the majority have now given up on the Trust, and they will probably just soldier on regardless.

From what I read on here, some on the Board seem to be untouchable.

Like I've already said, I don't know any of them personally - maybe it would help if I did, maybe not - so it's certainly nothing personal with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, but would it do any good?

I think the majority have now given up on the Trust, and they will probably just soldier on regardless.

From what I read on here, some on the Board seem to be untouchable.

Like I've already said, I don't know any of them personally - maybe it would help if I did, maybe not - so it's certainly nothing personal with me.

I think it would be an ideal opportunity to put to bed any theories, indescrepencies etc and an opportunity for trust members to ask any questions that need attention instead of trawling around forums getting half truths and stories

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think an EGM would be pointless as the usual suspects will circle the wagons and within 4 weeks they will be coming out with statements of how they can move forward, but imo the best these so called fans can do is blend into the background and let guys who really have the best intrests of our fans have a go at trying to salvage something from this charade

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think an EGM would be pointless as the usual suspects will circle the wagons and within 4 weeks they will be coming out with statements of how they can move forward, but imo the best these so called fans can do is blend into the background and let guys who really have the best intrests of our fans have a go at trying to salvage something from this charade

When you say "so called fans" what evidence do you have to sugest they are anything else than fans?

Just curious

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think an EGM would be pointless as the usual suspects will circle the wagons and within 4 weeks they will be coming out with statements of how they can move forward, but imo the best these so called fans can do is blend into the background and let guys who really have the best intrests of our fans have a go at trying to salvage something from this charade

I think they should be wound up and a new Trust formed.

Start from scratch, get new blood in, and get the club on side as well.

Get fighting for the fans and the small, basics that need to be dealt with, and let it grow naturally to become the biggest and best football supporters' trust in the country.

Run by fans for fans without any hidden agendas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well who would have paid for it?

I wouldn't know. I can tell you a personal bug-bear of mine as a member of the RST was inept communications with its members. Who would have authorised the funding of legal opinion? Should the RST board be paying for legal advice due to problems the RST board themselves created?

It puts me in mind of those MPs who used tax-payers money to take legal steps in their attempt to cover up their expenses scandals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say "so called fans" what evidence do you have to sugest they are anything else than fans?

Just curious

your always curious when it comes to defending the indefensible

i would say that by theyre actions they have nothing but self preservation in mind and couldnt really give a flying feck about they folk who pay subsciptions to keep them in jaffa cakes

i dont know any fans who would treat other fans this way

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't know. I can tell you a personal bug-bear of mine as a member of the RST was inept communications with its members. Who would have authorised the funding of legal opinion? Should the RST board be paying for legal advice due to problems the RST board themselves created?

It puts me in mind of those MPs who used tax-payers money to take legal steps in their attempt to cover up their expenses scandals.

It is quite normal for an organisation to seek legal advice in these circumstances. Indeed, it was a prudent and reasonable thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So did the RST pay for legal advice for MD or not?

The legal advice would not be specific to MD. The allegations made by Mr. Harris impact the board as a whole and whether the actions and decisions they took were legal. Given that Mr. Harris was on the board for a full year and must have been part of those decisions, this advice would benefit him too.

Incidentally, I note that various RST board members have given their views on what happened and that we also have a statement from the RST which challenges Mr. Harris' version of events. Can we now look forward to Mr. Harris showing up on this board to answer those challenges and any questions that some of us may have?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal advice would not be specific to MD. The allegations made by Mr. Harris impact the board as a whole and whether the actions and decisions they took were legal. Given that Mr. Harris was on the board for a full year and must have been part of those decisions, this advice would benefit him too.

Incidentally, I note that various RST board members have given their views on what happened and that we also have a statement from the RST which challenges Mr. Harris' version of events. Can we now look forward to Mr. Harris showing up on this board to answer those challenges and any questions that some of us may have?

what would be his agenda for making it up?

i think deep down you know this whole issue stinks and any mud the "guilty" throw they hope will stick

how many have resigned-good guys from here ive met-they all cant be wrong about the guys who are still hanging in there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Upcoming Events

    • 18 May 2024 11:30 Until 13:30
      0  
      Hearts v Rangers
      Tynecastle
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...