Statement released by former RST Secretary

[MisterC 12,287]

From the sidelines thats how it looks to some extent. Let those who are without sin cast the first stone as someone once said.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

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.

Many people over a long period of time have tried time and time again to get all interested parties together to work for the common good. Unfortunately, certain parties and personnel weren't interested in engaging in anything that was a joint effort.

[Jimenez 1]

Working for a common good?

Tell you what then, let's be having a meeting with all concerned and iron out any differences. I propose it here and now, just like Adoniram has for months.

I did find this quote a little ironic though. 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?

I'd urge the RST board, admin from VB and RM to sit at a table and get their fucking act together. But until the shit flinging and threats stop I can't see that happening.

[Jimenez 1]

Many people over a long period of time have tried time and time again to get all interested parties together to work for the common good. Unfortunately, certain parties and personnel weren't interested in engaging in anything that was a joint effort.

Yep, totally agree. There was definitely a window of opportunity when the BBC protests arose for everyone to drop the petty shenanigans for the better of the support. I was furious when the Trust and FF didn't take the offer but its also hard to argue with them when some of the contents posted on other boards.

[boss 1,941]

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.

Lol - I have never changed my tune on Graham Duffy, dramatically or otherwise. What's in it for you to perpetuate so many lies?

Oh, and welcome - I was wondering when you'd turn up here in the bastion of truth, sanity and clarity.

[MisterC 12,287]

is JD, a certain MD?

[Frankie 505]

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?

I'll take your points one by one if I may; although I believe these have been answered in full previously on this forum. Your responses are equally misleading and I'm not sure where you've got your flawed information.

1. The non-appearance of the Trust chair at a run of board meetings was unacceptable. I was one of the board members unhappy with that and have said so plenty of times; not least immediately after I resigned. I can't remember any restaurant meeting you allege but I do remember both the chair and vice-chair were entrusted by the rest of the board to act on their behalf. IIRC, there was also a debate amongst the board that an informal meeting between us and the club may be conductive to getting more business done and improving the club/RST relationship. I don't remember any objections.

Indeed, as mentioned above, there was some frustration expressed by the board by the lack of tangible progress and information from the meetings around this time. Because of the chair's business circumstances at that time a couple of meetings had been postponed and the chair requested another (he had auditors into his office at the last minute). This was extremely annoying given some board members had arranged to travel to said meeting - including myself. Nonetheless because this meeting was primarily to discuss the club dialogue, the secretary agreed the meeting should be cancelled and many board members agreed. Others wanted to go ahead and because of the content of that meeting, several board members resigned over the next couple of months; most only doing so after ensuring their various 'offices' were in good condition.

To conclude, there were no secret meetings that I was aware of and these people did intend reporting back as soon as their personal/business interests could allow. As such, the inference otherwise is malicious.

2. Once again, as is the case on FF, you also allege certain memorabilia supplied and accepted in good faith was 'fake'. Has the police investigation been concluded yet as I certainly can't answer the serious allegations you make on Mr McMillan's behalf? If anyone wants to ask questions of this matter then I suggest they contact 'Contacts' directly but I'd be surprised if he had an issue with anyone wanting to discuss this publicly given, as far as I can see, he's not done anything wrong.

As for discussing the Trust accounts, it wasn't done last year because this farcical issue wasn't in the public domain at that point clearly. Since then information has made its way (rightly or wrongly) so I'm sure you'll agree the issue should be discussed in full.

To conclude, past board members did not deliberately sell fake merchandise to the Trust. As such, the inference otherwise is malicious.

3. It relates to a post made by a senior FF contributor, an inference that has been made previously by the same person and others as far as I recall; without reprimand by the forum admin nor any Trust board members.

To conclude, this is nonsense and malicious in nature.

4. The Trust board has always been prone to leaks (and still is apparently). As such, the important information these people had was to be communicated at the earliest opportunity in situ. As discussed, the delay was unfortunate and unacceptable. I've also to find out what was said but I know from ongoing and open board debate at the time, the possibility of a supporter being elected to the club board of directors was a very real one.

To conclude, former board members did not lie about this credible chance. Inferring otherwise is malicious.

5. No, what was clearly alleged by Mr Dingwall, several times in fact, was that Mr McNiven is the stockbroker of Graham Duffy. Mr McNiven has nothing to with RM so not sure why this forum would 'take a year to dismiss this'. If you used this or other forums regularly, though you'd have noticed that I'd have done so several times here and elsewhere.

To conclude, the allegation is patently untrue so is also malicious lies.

6. Yes, the resigned board members of 2008 did not attend the EGM organised for a variety of reasons made clear at the time. For you to infer the statement released as an acceptable alternative was copied by Mr Harris and/or the media used by former board members is also malicious and unsubstantiated gossip.

To conclude, I don't know who you are (and I don't particularly care) but the rank hypocrisy and misinformation in your post is unhelpful and largely inaccurate despite the hitherto private information available to you.

As I've said previously, this 'appears to be the modus operandi' of people whom seem to take umbrage with any reasonable criticism of the RST. Sad, petty, vindictive and laughable.

[ThePRW 0]

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?

Why is all this old shite being opened up again?

This whole thing is descending into a total embarrassment to Rangers fans everywhere.

The amount of people who are blowing trivialities out of all proportion is bordering on pathetic. In fact, no, it's gone waaaaay beyond pathetic.

[Frankie 505]

is JD, a certain MD?

No idea but they are clearly an existing or former board member given they seem to have access to private Trust information.

As I've shown their hypocrisy is somewhat bizarre and one wonders at the intentions of the people behind it. More so when you juxtapose trouble-making and inaccurate posts like Jock's with the Trust statement of yesterday which talked about cynicism and exaggeration.

There is definitely a lack of discipline though and it isn't just coming from where the Trust allege.

[Frankie 505]

Why is all this old shite being opened up again?

This whole thing is descending into a total embarrassment to Rangers fans everywhere.

The amount of people who are blowing trivialities out of all proportion is bordering on pathetic. In fact, no, it's gone waaaaay beyond pathetic.

It sure is.

If you dare constructively criticise the Trust, then you're fair game for malicious gossip about you and your forum of choice. Quite incredible and extremely pathetic.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I'd urge the RST board, admin from VB and RM to sit at a table and get their fucking act together. But until the shit flinging and threats stop I can't see that happening.

2 of those 3 already do, from my understanding. Again goes back to a common denominator as far as I can tell. So, essentially, only 1 organisation needs to "get their fucking act together" as you put it

[Frankie 505]

Just to be clear about point 5 Jock as you seemed particularly confused there.

Here are a couple of direct quotes from Mark Dingwall made earlier this year:

Bit hard to take them now promoting the idea of a protest when they tried to torpedo the last anti-bank one on the not so honourable grounds that one of their number is now stockbroker to an alternative bidder and another has been recruited as Donald Muir (the enemy within)'s cheerleader-in-chief.

If you want a laugh look at the U-turn on another website which slaughtered Duffy only to change their tune when one of their chums - an ex-RST Chairman - became his stockbroker! Something of a stark contrast.

Now, is this an ongoing attempt to develop a malicious lie or constructive behaviour attempting to unite supporters from someone elected to act responsibly on our behalf?

[Jimenez 1]

2 of those 3 already do, from my understanding. Again goes back to a common denominator as far as I can tell. So, essentially, only 1 organisation needs to "get their fucking act together" as you put it

Oh come on. the insults and disguised threats you read on the forums don't make anyone appear credible.

[BlueIsTheColour 35]

Know what, all those involved in these internal playground politics need to have a good fucking look at themselves and realise that most of us fans couldn't give a flying fuck about your dodgy dealings and ego contests. Get a grip of yourselves and start acting like adults for the best interests of our support or get yourself to fuck and let fans who are mature enough to deal with such positions take the reigns.

Absolute embarrassment!

[Jimenez 1]

Know what, all those involved in these internal playground politics need to have a good fucking look at themselves and realise that most of us fans couldn't give a flying fuck about your dodgy dealings and ego contests. Get a grip of yourselves and start acting like adults for the best interests of our support or get yourself to fuck and let fans who are mature enough to deal with such positions take the reigns.

Absolute embarrassment!

Round of applause needed here.

[markybear 136]

Know what, all those involved in these internal playground politics need to have a good fucking look at themselves and realise that most of us fans couldn't give a flying fuck about your dodgy dealings and ego contests. Get a grip of yourselves and start acting like adults for the best interests of our support or get yourself to fuck and let fans who are

mature enough to deal with such positions take the reigns.

Absolute embarrassment!

Have to agree, as an average fan myself I really do not care what happens at the RST, if I'm honest I'm glad it's the RST and not RFC that's got these latest issues.

RST do not speak in my name, similarly what they do or don't do with their accounts and their egotistical in house fighting is also not in my name.

I think folk forget what's important in all this and that is our common love of the rangers. Not power-struggles

[minstral 5,375]

To many that are power mad and want to be heard all the time, and all we are doing is giving all the Rangers haters ammunition to use against us.

[Dennis 1,011]

Ive got to say, I know that there are different "factions" when it is concerning the bears, I also know it is bad, but, did not know it was like this. and to me it is quite concerning.

[Adoniram 1,919]

It could easily be stopped here and now.

[ThePRW 0]

It could easily be stopped here and now.

How?

[Jock_Drummond 0]

I'll take your points one by one if I may; although I believe these have been answered in full previously on this forum. Your responses are equally misleading and I'm not sure where you've got your flawed information.

1. The non-appearance of the Trust chair at a run of board meetings was unacceptable. I was one of the board members unhappy with that and have said so plenty of times; not least immediately after I resigned. I can't remember any restaurant meeting you allege but I do remember both the chair and vice-chair were entrusted by the rest of the board to act on their behalf. IIRC, there was also a debate amongst the board that an informal meeting between us and the club may be conductive to getting more business done and improving the club/RST relationship. I don't remember any objections.

Indeed, as mentioned above, there was some frustration expressed by the board by the lack of tangible progress and information from the meetings around this time. Because of the chair's business circumstances at that time a couple of meetings had been postponed and the chair requested another (he had auditors into his office at the last minute). This was extremely annoying given some board members had arranged to travel to said meeting - including myself. Nonetheless because this meeting was primarily to discuss the club dialogue, the secretary agreed the meeting should be cancelled and many board members agreed. Others wanted to go ahead and because of the content of that meeting, several board members resigned over the next couple of months; most only doing so after ensuring their various 'offices' were in good condition.

To conclude, there were no secret meetings that I was aware of and these people did intend reporting back as soon as their personal/business interests could allow. As such, the inference otherwise is malicious.

You admit that the non-appearance of the Chair was unacceptable, you admit to frustration within the board and can’t ‘remember’ any restaurant meeting, yet we are asked to believe that the inference was malicious. What inference, exactly?

Did the majority of the Trust board not have a right to be concerned at how matters were progressing and to act accordingly?

On the one hand you are claiming not to know anything about ‘secret meetings’ yet on the other you would appear to know enough to dismiss any concerns.

2. Once again, as is the case on FF, you also allege certain memorabilia supplied and accepted in good faith was 'fake'. Has the police investigation been concluded yet as I certainly can't answer the serious allegations you make on Mr McMillan's behalf? If anyone wants to ask questions of this matter then I suggest they contact 'Contacts' directly but I'd be surprised if he had an issue with anyone wanting to discuss this publicly given, as far as I can see, he's not done anything wrong.

As for discussing the Trust accounts, it wasn't done last year because this farcical issue wasn't in the public domain at that point clearly. Since then information has made its way (rightly or wrongly) so I'm sure you'll agree the issue should be discussed in full.

To conclude, past board members did not deliberately sell fake merchandise to the Trust. As such, the inference otherwise is malicious.

As I implied in my first post, the wording you are using presents a straw-man argument. The issue does not involve the deliberate selling of fake merchandise but the embarrassment caused and cost incurred to the Trust. Instead of co-operating with board members to ascertain just who bought the shirts, Scott McMillan was obstructive.

Perhaps you could clarify the following:

Is it not true that Mr McMillan supplied four framed signed shirts for the Rangers Lotto Summer Draw 2009 - Beckham, Rooney, etc.

Is it true that the four shirts supplied by Mr McMillan were withdrawn from the draw after investigations into their authenticity proved negative?

Is it true that the Lotto staff then had to source replacement prizes for the winners?

3. It relates to a post made by a senior FF contributor, an inference that has been made previously by the same person and others as far as I recall; without reprimand by the forum admin nor any Trust board members.

To conclude, this is nonsense and malicious in nature.

Unless more details are given then it is impossible to comment further.

4. The Trust board has always been prone to leaks (and still is apparently). As such, the important information these people had was to be communicated at the earliest opportunity in situ. As discussed, the delay was unfortunate and unacceptable. I've also to find out what was said but I know from ongoing and open board debate at the time, the possibility of a supporter being elected to the club board of directors was a very real one.

To conclude, former board members did not lie about this credible chance. Inferring otherwise is malicious.

This takes us back to point 1 where although you aren’t sure ‘what was said’ and you choose your own words to describe the allegation supposedly being made it must inevitably be ‘malicious’.

Malicious means having evil or mischievous intent. Does that mean that anyone who questions anything related to this episode is evil or mischievous?

5. No, what was clearly alleged by Mr Dingwall, several times in fact, was that Mr McNiven is the stockbroker of Graham Duffy. Mr McNiven has nothing to with RM so not sure why this forum would 'take a year to dismiss this'. If you used this or other forums regularly, though you'd have noticed that I'd have done so several times here and elsewhere.

To conclude, the allegation is patently untrue so is also malicious lies.

I think you should check this out with his long-term acquaintance Tony McGuinness or a member of Mr McNiven’s staff.

6. Yes, the resigned board members of 2008 did not attend the EGM organised for a variety of reasons made clear at the time. For you to infer the statement released as an acceptable alternative was copied by Mr Harris and/or the media used by former board members is also malicious and unsubstantiated gossip.

I never ‘inferred’ any such thing. I was merely highlighting questionable conduct and wondering what ‘zealot’ meant in this context.

To conclude, I don't know who you are (and I don't particularly care) but the rank hypocrisy and misinformation in your post is unhelpful and largely inaccurate despite the hitherto private information available to you.

As I've said previously, this 'appears to be the modus operandi' of people whom seem to take umbrage with any reasonable criticism of the RST. Sad, petty, vindictive and laughable.

Not quite as laughable as twisting words and then squealing 'malicious lies', though.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

"Did the majority of the Trust board not have a right to be concerned at how matters were progressing and to act accordingly?"

Anyone spot the irony?

[Bluedell 14]

Ah, Sam Newton returns under a different guise. What's with the name change?

[Orangeclement 570]

Know what, all those involved in these internal playground politics need to have a good fucking look at themselves and realise that most of us fans couldn't give a flying fuck about your dodgy dealings and ego contests. Get a grip of yourselves and start acting like adults for the best interests of our support or get yourself to fuck and let fans who are mature enough to deal with such positions take the reigns.

Absolute embarrassment!

ALL SELF IMPORTANT SO CALLED FANS READ THIS THEN DO THE HONOURABLE THING AND PACK YOUR BAGS .

WE DESERVE BETTER

[Jimenez 1]

ALL SELF IMPORTANT SO CALLED FANS READ THIS THEN DO THE HONOURABLE THING AND PACK YOUR BAGS .

WE DESERVE BETTER

Thing is, I know the majority of people on either side aren't up their own arses. But no one is giving a bloody inch. Depressing as fuck.