Statement released by former RST Secretary

[bluepeter 5,627]

You deliberately misrepresent the situation on this, do you not?

1. How does late payment for RST function tickets, become a loan?

2. How does someone "pay back the money", if no money was ever borrowed?

There may be questions that need answered, but trying to represent what happened, as something it was not, is not the way to go.

I've not deliberately misinterpreted anything. Quite to the contrary, my post you've quoted says "was loaned - or underwritten, or whatever you want to call it." It would seem you are deliberately misinterpreting me.

As to question 2, are you seriously suggesting that Mr Dingwall didn't owe the RST any money?

[dirtybill 0]

The apologists and arselickers are out in force now I see. Jump boy, jump, higher boy, higher

What catagory do you fall into

[Allanger 625]

What catagory do you fall into

Thats not even half a retort. Jump boy, jump

[HHB 63]

Apparently Mr Harris attempted to read the statement but was refused permission. I don't know whether or not he had furnished his colleagues with a copy beforehand but given the Trust had already prepared a legal opinion and had a senior auditor present, one can only conclude they were aware of the content.

The Trust board should then have afforded the guy the time to read out his statement and allow the members present to debate it in situ. By allowing the issue to not be discussed they have only caused problems for themselves when juxtaposed with the alleged cover up behind the scenes. Is it any wonder speculation is rife? The Trust can blame no-one but themselves for that.

All in all, I doubt any sensible person would suggest anyone was attempting to profit from all of this but naivety and lack of judgement only go so far. Add in the unacceptable behaviour of board members elsewhere where they attempt to blame others for having the temerity to raise and discuss what is clearly an irregular issue, well the reputation of the Trust is at an all time low. The rest of the business from the AGM lend weight to that conclusion and that is even more worrying for those of us genuinely interested in independent representation.

Like you, I'm a huge Trust supporter and wish nothing more than the organisation to be successful. In recent years though it has fallen from grace remarkably quickly and lacks credibility amongst potential members (old and new alike). This unfortunate episode has not helped and the continued presence of people that go against the very principles of being a respected Trust representative can only make things worse.

It is vital that, as a matter or urgency, the Trust fully explain this issue and open the debate to their members to discuss any action points therein. Not doing that would fuel the fire more than finally respecting their members enough to make a full apology for the trivial way in which they've been approaching their jobs.

The time for excuses is long gone.

The auditor should always be present at any AGM. That is standard procedure.

What did the legal opinion state?

It is my understanding that he had the opportunity to read his statement under the "debate and motions" section of the AGM but chose not to stay for that section.

[dirtybill 0]

Thats not even half a retort. Jump boy, jump

That must only make sense to you, whats your stance on this whole debacle provided you have one?

[lebooboo 1]

Didn't take too long to draw the poodles out I see. What took you so long?

Someone asks you a reasonable question, and the abuse starts. Very good.

[lebooboo 1]

I've not deliberately misinterpreted anything. Quite to the contrary, my post you've quoted says "was loaned - or underwritten, or whatever you want to call it." It would seem you are deliberately misinterpreting me.

As to question 2, are you seriously suggesting that Mr Dingwall didn't owe the RST any money?

But it wasn't a loan, was it? That's why I said it was misrepresented.

As you know, he said he owed the money. I don't think that is in dispute. However, you referring to it being "paid back" reinforces your suggestion that it was a loan, which it was not.

I don't think there is anything to be gained from trying to represent the money due, as being something that it wasn't.

[Frankie 505]

The auditor should always be present at any AGM. That is standard procedure.

What did the legal opinion state?

It is my understanding that he had the opportunity to read his statement under the "debate and motions" section of the AGM but chose not to stay for that section.

I'll defer to your better knowledge of AGM rules as I honestly can't remember if the auditor was present during any AGM I was at. I do know they attend the club AGM obviously.

The legal opinion isn't clear yet but I believe it has been posted in part on FF by Mark Dingwall where he suggested 'independent Solicitors' had 'cleared him of any wrongdoing or making any financial gain'. That along with the auditor conclusion suggests the issue, while not a trivial one, was more irregular than criminal. Certainly the flawed guarantee he gave may not have been legally wrong but it was morally wrong.

Mr Harris suggests that after being refused initially he was not going to be permitted the chance to read his statement; only ask questions. I believe he was wrong to leave the meeting at that point and not attempt to raise the issue again. However, that does not explain the reticence of the Trust board to make full disclosure of an issue that should have been discussed in full in order to remove the kind of speculation we've seen since.

Do you think the Trust are better or worse off because of this issue and the behaviour of key board members?

[kpstar 16]

Did he steal yer play peace then

Hes stole something from him thats for sure his agenda is nothing to do with the RST but a hatred of MD in my opinion

[gunslinger 270]

I've not deliberately misinterpreted anything. Quite to the contrary, my post you've quoted says "was loaned - or underwritten, or whatever you want to call it." It would seem you are deliberately misinterpreting me.

As to question 2, are you seriously suggesting that Mr Dingwall didn't owe the RST any money?

its pretty simple stuff

he got tickets for an event and took time to pay for the.

people here are really ruining their argument but alling this a loan.

i have no idea what they are saying on ff but i bet they are tearing this thread apart

[gunslinger 270]

I'll defer to your better knowledge of AGM rules as I honestly can't remember if the auditor was present during any AGM I was at. I do know they attend the club AGM obviously.

The legal opinion isn't clear yet but I believe it has been posted in part on FF by Mark Dingwall where he suggested 'independent Solicitors' had 'cleared him of any wrongdoing or making any financial gain'. That along with the auditor conclusion suggests the issue, while not a trivial one, was more irregular than criminal. Certainly the flawed guarantee he gave may not have been legally wrong but it was morally wrong.

Mr Harris suggests that after being refused initially he was not going to be permitted the chance to read his statement; only ask questions. I believe he was wrong to leave the meeting at that point and not attempt to raise the issue again. However, that does not explain the reticence of the Trust board to make full disclosure of an issue that should have been discussed in full in order to remove the kind of speculation we've seen since.

Do you think the Trust are better or worse off because of this issue and the behaviour of key board members?

do you think this thread is helping the trust?

[HHB 63]

I think this whole stushie is a sideshow which is more about the personal agendas that some people seem to have than about the real issues the RST need to address in order to be more effective going forward.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I joined the RST. I know none of the board members past or present.

Whatever else the RST once aimed for, it was my main hope that it would offer the chance for us - The Rangers support - to have a voice the club would not only listen to, but welcome the input.

Instead, it managed to become a source of embarrassment to the very people is sought to represent.

Shameful. Really.

[Frankie 505]

do you think this thread is helping the trust?

Just in case you missed it when you signed up, this is a Rangers forum where people talk about a variety of issues to do with the club.

When a Rangers supporters organisation which many people are interested in are involved in a controversial issue, then it is going to be discussed. Sure, some may not do so constructively but I'd contend the debate will be helping the Trust see how members and potential members alike are thinking about a subject they had the chance to discuss openly with members but decided not to.

[bluepeter 5,627]

But it wasn't a loan, was it? That's why I said it was misrepresented.

As you know, he said he owed the money. I don't think that is in dispute. However, you referring to it being "paid back" reinforces your suggestion that it was a loan, which it was not.

I don't think there is anything to be gained from trying to represent the money due, as being something that it wasn't.

"was loaned - or underwritten, or whatever you want to call it." Not sure how much clearer I can be that I'm not representing it as a loan. No matter how many times you say I am, that's not what I said. Why are you so intent on misrepresenting me while falsely accusing me of misrepresentation?

If he owed the RST money, which he did, how should I phrase it when asking about how he, erm, gives the money he owes to them? Most people would accept "pay back" as a perfectly reasonable phrase, don't you think?

[gunslinger 270]

Just in case you missed it when you signed up, this is a Rangers forum where people talk about a variety of issues to do with the club.

When a Rangers supporters organisation which many people are interested in are involved in a controversial issue, then it is going to be discussed. Sure, some may not do so constructively but I'd contend the debate will be helping the Trust see how members and potential members alike are thinking about a subject they had the chance to discuss openly with members but decided not to.

i am not suggesting it should not be duscussed.

but some of the twisting of the facts and downright dross on this thread is not doing either side any favours.

as i said earlier its no wonder ff find it easy to sell the concept that petty jelousys behind the views on here.

[SGC 0]

we are all in danger of this becoming a circular argument, both on here and on FF.

IMO everyone's efforts would be better spent trying to sort out the sorry mess we find ourselves in. I've been a member of the Trust for two years and i'm disillusioned with them, but still believe that we need a vehicle to represent our support.

I don't know what to suggest as some of the personalities mentioned on both sides seem to have created a fairly big divide. We need to try and somehow bridge this divide.

I for one am open to suggestions

WATP

[Frankie 505]

I think this whole stushie is a sideshow which is more about the personal agendas that some people seem to have than about the real issues the RST need to address in order to be more effective going forward.

The personal agendas you mention go both ways. That is extremely unfortunate and it is difficult to try and separate genuine concern from mischief in such threads. However, I think most bears are intelligent enough to see who is at it and who isn't.

Myself, well I've made clear throughout my time online that my interest is in that of a successful RST. Occasionally that will mean criticism (sometimes strong but always fair) and I don't think it is accurate for anyone to suggest otherwise (though I appreciate you may not have aimed your opinion directly at me).

Now, I've answered a few of your questions openly and honestly, please afford me the same courtesy. Do you think the Trust are better or worse off because of this issue and the behaviour of key board members?

[nemisis 358]

we are all in danger of this becoming a circular argument, both on here and on FF.

IMO everyone's efforts would be better spent trying to sort out the sorry mess we find ourselves in. I've been a member of the Trust for two years and i'm disillusioned with them, but still believe that we need a vehicle to represent our support.

I don't know what to suggest as some of the personalities mentioned on both sides seem to have created a fairly big divide. We need to try and somehow bridge this divide.

I for one am open to suggestions

WATP

It is in absolutely no danger of becoming a circular arguement on FF as no arguement is allowed. Which is one reason why the RST's insistence of giving preferential treatment to FF riles with loads of people.

[covert 0]

"was loaned - or underwritten, or whatever you want to call it." Not sure how much clearer I can be that I'm not representing it as a loan. No matter how many times you say I am, that's not what I said. Why are you so intent on misrepresenting me while falsely accusing me of misrepresentation?

If he owed the RST money, which he did, how should I phrase it when asking about how he, erm, gives the money he owes to them? Most people would accept "pay back" as a perfectly reasonable phrase, don't you think?

No, it would actually be payment due, as to underwrite is to indemnify from loss.

[Frankie 505]

i am not suggesting it should not be duscussed.

but some of the twisting of the facts and downright dross on this thread is not doing either side any favours.

as i said earlier its no wonder ff find it easy to sell the concept that petty jelousys behind the views on here.

The same could be said of the malicious nonsense passed off as fact on FF.

All in all of course the pettiness on both sides often detracts from the few who make valid points (be it for or against the Trust). However, I think you do the average bear a disservice in suggesting that people can't formulate an opinion from the genuine information available.

I think that is reflected in the performance of the RST in recent years. People are not buying into the organisation (for whatever reason you want) and that is the biggest issue here yet people seem more intent in rubbishing what are valid concerns simply to exaggerate and perpetuate inter sites wars.

[kpstar 16]

It is in absolutely no danger of becoming a circular arguement on FF as no arguement is allowed. Which is one reason why the RST's insistence of giving preferential treatment to FF riles with loads of people.

And what about on here if somebody questions things being said against the RST and FF they are branded Poodles and Arselickers

[bluepeter 5,627]

No, it would actually be payment due, as to underwrite is to indemnify from loss.

So, "whatever you want to call it" would cover it then?

[AMMS 27]

As a professional handwringer and complete outsider to the RST I've read this and the 17 page other thread with bewilderment. It really reads like a storm in a teacup. The money that was owed has been paid back. The guy who owed it has said he was struggling financially and thought he could pay it back sooner than he did. It wasn't a huge amount of money, it could have been forgotten about, that isn't a ridiculous thing to suggest. But in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't seem like that big a deal. As for the credit card machine I'm at a loss as to what the issue is here. So it is borrowed from time-to-time, c'mon is that really a problem?

The 'trust' look a little homespun, amateurish perhaps, and maybe prepared to do things on a friendly basis that perhaps aren't strictly correct. But again that's not a crime. They are a voluntary organisation run in peoples spare time, and it shows, but what did everyone really expect exactly?

[gunslinger 270]

No, it would actually be payment due, as to underwrite is to indemnify from loss.

exactly. if we were talking abot cash lifted from the account and given free of charge for 2 years things would be very different.

if ff.com had not taken these tables their simply would be a bigger hole in the accounts due to bigger losses on the fundraising dinner.

talk of loand underwriting etc is both wide of the mark and not very helpful.