Statement released by former RST Secretary

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Whats so silly about my response?

ALL debts should feature in the accounts, and in detail.

It's the fans' money they're playing with here and every single penny should be accounted for.

Absolutely nothing silly at all with my response.

You seem to know a bit about the RST, obviously more than me, so maybe you can answer the questions I've asked twice in this thread, and I've not been able to get an answer as of yet?

What were the views of the CC Company when they were made aware that their PDQ machine was being used bya 3rd party?

Were they made aware of this?

And if not, why?

Did the legal advisor not suggest that the RST should make the CC Company aware of this illegal practice? If only to show transparency, and that a mistake had been made?

Well in the Company accounts I have ever seen, none have featured such detail, maybe that's not representative, but I think that published accounts which detail each and every amount of monies owed would tend to be unmanageable.

But what I found silly in your post was the inference that because I questioned whether each individual debt would be in the published accounts that this meant that I do not think that debts should be recorded and pursued.

As for questions to the RST, address them to the RST.

I don't even know what CC and PDQ mean.

[thebooler 4,509]

Ive got a question for the guys on here that know alot about this subject...

A poster called 'oportunityknox' started a thread asking the rangers online and offline community's to unite against a common enemy (still yet to be confirmed who this is)

http://forum.rangers...howtopic=164232

My question is... Is his thread, who the hell is he talking about? and... can anyone explain how it all links into the current RST debacle (if it even does)

confused.com loyal

I took that particular thread with a pinch of salt mate - it was probably thrown in there to try to deflect everyone away from the real issues at hand.

[Adoniram 1,919]

I took that particular thread with a pinch of salt mate - it was probably thrown in there to try to deflect everyone away from the real issues at hand.

Rest assured the OP is not one to throw in such comments.The information he and others are privy to is highly sensitive and has to be checked and double checked before it can be released.

And Markybear...if you want to comment on it then it may make more sense to debate it in that thread than derail or sidetrack this one.

[thebooler 4,509]

Well in the Company accounts I have ever seen, none have featured such detail, maybe that's not representative, but I think that published accounts which detail each and every amount of monies owed would tend to be unmanageable.

But what I found silly in your post was the inference that because I questioned whether each individual debt would be in the published accounts that this meant that I do not think that debts should be recorded and pursued.

As for questions to the RST, address them to the RST.

I don't even know what CC and PDQ mean.

CC is the Credit Card Company from whom you rent your PDQ machines (credit card transaction machines) and they are for the sole use of the person/s who sign the agreement to use these machines. From what I've read on here, the RST loaned these machines out to other people (charities?) which would be illegal as far as I'm aware.

There would also be tax implications and rebates for any transactions which went through these machines for charitable purposes, as every charity collection must be licenced and the charity number used in all money and CC transactions. eg if you donate £10 to a charity, the tax man puts in maybe £2.

If legal advice was taken with regards to all of these "anomalies" in the RST's financial dealings, then I would expect the person giving the legal advice to point these facts out to the RST, and also to advise them to inform the CC Company of this action, even if only to acknowledge their mistake and that they are now aware they can't do this.

[markybear 136]

I took that particular thread with a pinch of salt mate - it was probably thrown in there to try to deflect everyone away from the real issues at hand.

do u think it was an RST member/spokesman/director or something similar?

[thebooler 4,509]

do u think it was an RST member/spokesman/director or something similar?

No idea as I've said before, I don't know anyone on the RST at all.

I'm just going on what I read and hear about, and I also have the club at heart, and any groups which are formed to support the club and its fans.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Is your middle name pedantic? Now stop being an arse and debate by all means, but being patronising will only get similar replies.

It's obvious you've missed something.

Thanks for that, very helpful.

You used the wrong word and I sought clarification.

A very dignified response.

[markybear 136]

Now you're just talking piss.

excuse me?

if folk would divulge info instead of all this cloak and dagger bollox then i wouldnt have to asked so called stupid questions.

[minstral 5,375]

Just reading the thread above about The Rangers Chorus and thats what we are all about. In my days going to watch the team we love is all we needed and meeting up with fellow bears and going for a drink and chat after the game. We did not need anyone to speak up for us, and all this arguing about trusts does my head in. Can me not just all go and support our team like we used to do and keep the fighting and arguing for the people that attack us every week in the media and press.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Now you're just talking piss.

There's a lot more piss-taking going on in the dark recesses of RST Board meetings.

Fact.

[Frankie 505]

excuse me?

if folk would divulge info instead of all this cloak and dagger bollox then i wouldnt have to asked so called stupid questions.

That thread was posted by a VB member wanting to highlight people's attention to another matter which, at this stage, has not yet been fully disclosed for a couple of key reasons.

Nothing to do with the RST nor was it a RST member that posted it.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

That thread was posted by a VB member wanting to highlight people's attention to another matter which, at this stage, has not yet been fully disclosed for a couple of key reasons.

Nothing to do with the RST nor was it a RST member that posted it.

Much of the ongoing confusion would have been cleared at the outset if the RST had made a definitive statement at the off.

[markybear 136]

That thread was posted by a VB member wanting to highlight people's attention to another matter which, at this stage, has not yet been fully disclosed for a couple of key reasons.

Nothing to do with the RST nor was it a RST member that posted it.

thanku frankie, thats all i wanted, a bit of clarification and an indication on whether the 2 subjects where related

[Frankie 505]

Much of the ongoing confusion would have been cleared at the outset if the RST had made a definitive statement at the off.

They've still not made one yet.

[Jimenez 1]

Just reading the thread above about The Rangers Chorus and thats what we are all about. In my days going to watch the team we love is all we needed and meeting up with fellow bears and going for a drink and chat after the game. We did not need anyone to speak up for us, and all this arguing about trusts does my head in. Can me not just all go and support our team like we used to do and keep the fighting and arguing for the people that attack us every week in the media and press.

In an ideal world minstral, in an ideal world.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I'm sure I can back through your posts and find you using the "wrong words" But what would be the point? I'll make sure I'm Chrystal clear with you in particular from now on though.

You stick to defending the defending the clique and their unacceptable behaviour and I'll give the dignified response when required.

In fact I would be delighted to be corrected if I have used the wrong words. Some of us assume that people mean what they say.

You can spin it as much as you like but advice and representation are very different, and I was genuinely asking whether representation had been needed.

And in your world not joining in a virtual lynching of a fellow bear = 'defending the clique'?

Is it any wonder that some folk prefer not to not to deal with VBs?

[MisterC 12,287]

The bitching and the infighting between the small percentage of supporters that care about the day to day running of the club would be comical if it wasn't so heartbreaking.

I know Jim and totally agree with you. If only we could all just get along.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

In fact I would be delighted to be corrected if I have used the wrong words. Some of us assume that people mean what they say.

You can spin it as much as you like but advice and representation are very different, and I was genuinely asking whether representation had been needed.

And in your world not joining in a virtual lynching of a fellow bear = 'defending the clique'?

Is it any wonder that some folk prefer not to not to deal with VBs?

VB - defending our traditions.

RST - dragging our traditions through the mud.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Never mind VB, I'm talking to you as a person. I don't represent anyone or any group, so again, you're talking crap. However I think your final statement gave the real reason for the snide comments.

Some of assume that people mean what they say

Now If I was pedantic person like you, I would come back and pull you up about the above double Dutch. But we all make typing errors and mistakes, just that some of us, don't feel the need to be a smart arse.

Thanks for pointing it out, but I had already spotted it and edited the post.

I am surprised that you found it to be 'double Dutch' ('incomprehensible talk; gibberish') because I omitted a word.

Assuming you really mean 'double Dutch' of course.

Oh dear, I guess that makes me a smartarse.......

[*Manticore* 1,893]

VB - defending our traditions.

RST - dragging our traditions through the mud.

Very good.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

Instead of the nit-picking and the rubbish that follows it, why don't we keep the thread about what the topic is supposed to be about.

Cheers

[Jock_Drummond 0]

Sure. Here are just five examples that are commonly posted on FF and have appeared as recently as the last few days when they are confronted with the occasional piece of constructive criticism from elsewhere:

1. Past board members had secret meetings with the club and did not report back. Malicious lies.

2. Past board members deliberately sold fake merchandise to the Trust. Malicious lies.

3. Past board members had 'freebies and didn't declare them'. Malicious lies.

4. Past board members lied about the credible chance of a supporter on the board. Malicious lies.

5. The past Trust chairman is now Andrew Ellis' stockbroker. Malicious lies.

Now, these lies weren't posted by some random poster but by current and former board members including Mark Dingwall himself. They are ludicrous, unsubstantiated and totally without foundation and is shown when anyone asks them to prove their nonsense. I also know for a fact that other board members cringe when they read such posts because they know the allegations are untrue and make the Trust look stupid.

Your choice of words used to describe the allegations made against some previous board members is misleading. Let me clarify...

1. Past board members did not divulge full details of meetings with Sir David Murray. The non-appearance of Trust Chair at three successive board meetings was viewed by other board members as a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Specific issues arising are:

Were Malcolm McNiven and Scott McMillan not wined and dined in Cosmo’s restaurant by Sir David Murray and Martin Bain and was this not reported more than a week later with no minutes provided?

Is it not true that Malcolm McNiven and Scott McMillan both baulked at having to face their fellow Board members to explain what they had been up to in a series of meetings and failed to provide feedback culminating in their non-appearance at a Board meeting the date of which was specifically set to suit them? Malcolm McNiven resigned the next day after being asked to provide a report of his dealings with the club by the Trust Board.

2. Scott McMillan’s purchase of merchandise (namely, signed/framed shirts) believed to be fake is recorded in last year’s RST accounts and the background was described at the 2009 RST AGM. The matter arose as a result of a complaint to the both the Fife and Surrey police forces regarding the activities of Jamie Keeble (a.k.a. Ben Stevens). The Trust found itself in the embarrassing position of needing to inform those who might have purchased some of this merchandise at functions. When requested by the new Trust Chairman to recall some of those who bought the shirts, Mr McMillan sent a 661 word email but could only recall one purchaser who had bought a Torres top for £300 in cash. His name was Mark Dingwall!

Would you like to deny that a current board member had her Rangers Media account banned on the grounds that she might ask awkward questions about Scott McMillan?

If you are so keen on looking at the Trust accounts why was there no in-depth RM investigation last year?

3. No idea what this comment relates to.

4. This point was supposedly so important it could only be communicated by word of mouth by Malcolm McNiven and Scott McMillan.

The RST board still awaits with interest.

5. No. What was alleged that despite the ridicule and abuse he took on RM from ‘boss’, Malcolm McNiven (ex-Trust Chair) contacted Graham Duffy days afterwards and ‘boss’ subsequently changed his tune rather dramatically. Members of Malcolm’s staff believe he was appointed as Duffy’s advisor.

It has taken almost a year for RM to attempt to dismiss this story.

Amidst the calls for openness and clarity, those who resigned from the RST board in 2008 refused to present their case at the EGM and instead relied on the release of a misleading statement on the internet. This appears to have become a modus operandi.

Subsequent to the resignations in May/June 2008, the Daily Record ran a story by ‘Alan Marshall’ which contained comments from a resigned Trust board member that those who remained were ‘zealots’. In what respect were they zealots and why did he go running to the press?

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Jeez oh, are you not missing a school lesson today? Listen son, do me a favour, If you have a problem with me, send me a PM and we can discuss it like civillised people that we are.

I don't have a problem with you, if I did I would just ignore you.

We had this wee exchange because you had a go at me for asking a genuine question.

So no, any problem certainly does not lie with me.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

The irony of a member of the current trust board complaining about people giving stories to the press should escape no one......

Wonder why he didn't post under his follow follow name......hmmmm....

[Jimenez 1]

What are this lot like? Rangers fans, regardless of politics, websites or whatever, look at what these people are doing to the RST. Backstabbing, innuendo, alleged corruption, secret meetings, missing cash, smears etc etc and tell me this is what the RST was set up for.

Tell me these people should be running an organisation many of us had hopes for?

If you honestly believe the above statement and all the other crap we hear about these people is acceptable and they the right people to run the Trust, then I'm afraid there's no hope for any of us. This is so called friends, this is Rangers fan on Rangers fan, people who go to meetings together and apparently have the same aims and goals.

Shame on each and every person involved in this nonsense. None of you deserve anything but scorn from right thinking Bears.

It works both ways as far as I can see, each side as petty as as the other.

Articulate and passionate Rangers fans more interested in slamming fellow bears instead of working together for the common good.