Answers To the Questions Posed to RST

[NamibianBear 1,851]

Please find below the questions posed to the RST along with their fairly comprehensive answers. These come from the RST board so I think we can all be certain that this is the official response to the questions. The questions/answers have also been placed in front of the RST's legal team.

These answers are unedited by me

Please let's have sensible discussions on the topic. If you wish to question their answers, I would suggest that proof is shown also otherwise there could be legal implications.

Admins/Mods are looking in guys so keep it civil!

Questions for the RST

Loaned Monies

One of the biggest bones of contention to some people is the perceived misuse of Trust monies by an individual to further his own cause rather than correct use of Trust funds.

1. Was the ex-RST Secretary, Allen Harris, correct when he stated that followfollow.com had a free loan of monies from the RST for 18 months during 2008 and 2010? If so, why has Followfollow proprietor Mark Dingwall been allowed to remain on the RST board ever since?
   If not, this would make Mr Harris’s letter a lot of suppositions and lies. What is/has the Trust done to redress that imbalance?
   

No, this is not correct.

The reasons for Mr Harris making these incorrect allegations are best known to himself; however, we can only conclude they were made in order to distort the truth to further his own interests.

In any event, the RST responded to Mr. Harris’s statements on 28

th

September 2010 by issuing the following statement:

‘Tuesday, 28 September 2010 16:26

The Board of the Rangers Supporters Trust deplores the cynical, inaccurate and grossly exaggerated claims made on internet forums by former Secretary Alan Harris.

The claims relate to monies totalling £2690 which had been due to the RST for an extended period of time after being pledged by a Board member (Mark Dingwall). The background to this is that Mr. Dingwall had committed to underwrite the selling of tables and some other incidental items at two Rangers-related dinners for good causes in 2008. Mr. Dingwall was unable to sell the seats immediately and as the RST had organised the events, he was therefore deemed liable for the outstanding monies. Due to business pressures, Mr. Dingwall was unable to repay the balance immediately and two cheques were returned from the bank. All of the outstanding money was subsequently paid by Mr. Dingwall and the account is settled.

The Trust Board then commissioned independent legal advice to probe Mr. Harris’s claims and Mark Dingwall and Trust Chair Stephen Smith voluntarily withdrew from Board duties in order to facilitate an independent investigation. While Mr. Dingwall was cleared of the allegation of making any financial gain, legal advice stated that the issue should have been highlighted sooner as, while monies were overdue, it could reasonably be deemed to be a conflict of interest. The legal advice concluded that it would be unreasonable to ask Mr. Dingwall to resign in this instance and the Board agreed that he acted in good faith from the outset and far from profiting he was in fact ultimately, personally out of pocket.

The Trust Board accepts the legal advice in full and has already put in place a series of improvements in its financial management procedures which will enable the RST to move forward with more robust controls, visibility and reporting.

Recent internet posts from Mr. Harris claiming to quote from the Auditors Report (which exists for the purpose of advising the Trust Board) are factually inaccurate.

None of these quotes were included in the report - in fact these quotes substantially reflect or derive from draft amendments which Mr. Harris himself sought to have included in the Auditors report, in order to reflect his own opinions and further his own goals.

These amendments were rejected by the Auditors and Board following receipt of the legal advice. The Auditor fully signed-off the RST’s accounts on an unqualified basis and the Board accepted the Report, implementing more robust financial procedures in the process.

The Trust Board is deeply disappointed at a deliberate and premeditated breach of confidentiality. We do not accept that this is either whistle blowing or in any way justifiable behaviour. Mr. Harris has stated his opinions without context on a public message-board, instead of raising these questions at the Trust's Annual General Meeting on 19 September - a meeting he elected to walk out of after only 15 minutes rather than wait for the 'open-floor' section of the meeting when the Chair had already indicated to Mr. Harris he could express his opinions.

The RST Board will now consider the actions necessary, including disciplinary action, to take the Trust forward.’

To the best of our knowledge, the content of this statement has never been challenged by Mr. Harris and we can only conclude that this is because the content is entirely factual.

1. Please clarify the RST’s position on all the accusations of a loan of nearly GBP2700.00. Was this money misappropriated? How has the issue, and any interest accrued, been resolved?
   

See above. Advice was taken from accounting and legal professionals. There was no loan and no misappropriation of funds.

It should be noted that financial irregularities constitute a criminal offence and any evidence of this should be reported to the police.

RST Specific

1. Please list the successes of the Trust over the last ten and a bit years.
   

• Creation of over 4,000 new shareholders in the oldco
  
• Prevented the sale and leaseback of Ibrox Stadium
  
• Compiled a 15 point plan for the future of the club
  
• Introduced a new CRM system to manage membership
  
• Compiled reports for the Club on safety issues fans encountered in Bucharest, Stuttgart and Pamplona and presented them to the Club
  
• Wrote an acquisition plan for a client who wanted to underwrite a fans buy-out of the Club
  
• Set up and operated Gersave which put £50K into the Club
  
• Raised £250K in the IPO, cash which went directly to the Club
  
• Asked a number of pertinent questions at Club AGMs regarding the running of the Club and its finances
  
• Orchestrated the We Deserve Better Campaign, questioning the high risk spending strategy and lack of long term vision for the Club
  
• Presented the Sam English Bowl to the Club
  
• Sponsored the Walter Tull Trophy between Rangers and Tottenham fans
  
• Backed and promoted the Red and Black scarves campaign
  
• Exposed Neil Lennon as a bigot by seeking the expertise of a lip-reader
  
• Over the last year we have introduced a new CRM system managing the membership database, proper cash handling procedures, a data protection policy, we have a set of new rules approved by the FCA, new election rules, an unqualified audit report, a new capital funding share scheme, a new website and a driven board with a bit of vision (proxy voting, instalment plans etc).
  

1. Why are some original RST board members still on the board ten years after the launch of the RST? Surely their term of office must have expired by now? Does the constitution of the RST allow for extended periods of service on t board?
   

The RST has adopted the Supporters Direct model rules, which can be viewed on our website.

http://www.therst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/RST-Model-Rules-Approved-Sept-2012.pdf

All board members are democratically elected by our members in accordance with the society rules and Supporters Direct guidance, and no member can serve more than twelve consecutive years on the RST board. This is in accordance with clause 5.9 of the Supporters Direct Election Policy, as adopted by the RST.

1. Is it healthy for the RST to be so closely identified with the FollowFollow web site?
   

It is perhaps inevitable that this could be the perception due to the strong influence the site had on the formation of the RST. All founder members met via the site and the decision was made to set up a supporters trust. In addition, the site’s editor is a Board member of the RST. With regard to communications with members - all RST communications are either e-mailed, Twittered, Facebooked and put on the RST website first and other groups or individuals are free to use the information. No Board member, other than Mark Dingwall, has any say in the running of Follow Follow.

1. If the RST truly aims to widen fan ownership, why do they refuse dialogue with Vanguard Bears, a group of Rangers fans which cannot even be named on the “perceived” RST's in-house website, Followfollow.com?
   

See previous comments re the FollowFollow website. The RST is willing to speak to anyone who has the best interests of the Club and the fans at heart, as demonstrated last year with the march to Hampden.

1. Despite having been in existence for 10 years, the RST membership remains disproportionately low given the size of the Rangers fan-base. The RST continues to be perceived among the wider fan-base, not as a group genuinely seeking to represent the entire fan-base, but as a publicity-hungry self-interest clique. What steps can the RST take to address this perception?
   

All supporters’ trusts suffer from disproportionally low memberships. Similar to political parties, many people support them without taking the next step of joining the party.

1. What is RST policy with regard to Scottish media outlets i.e. does the RST back calls for its members to boycott the Daily Record & Sunday Mail? If so, why did an RST board member give the Record an interview two weeks ago?
   

We tend to adopt a ‘horses for courses’ approach. At present, the only media outlet which we specifically do not cooperate with is BBC Scotland.

Mark Dingwall Specific

1. Can we have clarity on MD position in RST and his role across all other sites?
   

Mark serves on the Board of the RST where he acts as media spokesperson. He also represents the RST on the Rangers Supporters Assembly and the Rangers Fans Working Group. In addition, he is on the committee of the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund.

1. Is there not a conflict of interest for MD to have different roles in different fans groups/websites?
   

No. There is no conflict with any of the groups.

1. Seeing as how MD appears to be the biggest stumbling block with recruitment, is it not in the Trust’s interest to remove him from the board?
   

This perception may exist on Rangers Media but we do not believe this to be representative of the wider support. Mark’s re-election to the Board at the last AGM was unanimous.

Trust Accounts

1. Can we see published the accounts of the Trust yearly on the (I am suggesting) RST website?
   

The Trust accounts (which are independently audited)

are

available on our website for members to view. Prior to our new website being up and running last year, our accounts were available on the old website for anyone to view.

BUYRANGERS

There are some questions around the various fans deposited money for GERSAVE and how it was disposed of:

The RST site shows you have £250k invested in shares. It has been said that that didn't include the residue from the £92k (plus interest) from Gersave

1. How much Gersave money have you spent on shares in the new company?
   

The residue Gersave money has been transferred to an Escrow Account, which is held by our solicitors, until we buy additional shares.

1. What price where those shares bought at?
   

N/A

1. How much was left and was it all returned?
   

Assuming we are talking about Gersave, there was approximately £93K in the account when the Club went into administration. All contributors were contacted and asked what they wanted to do with their money. Most asked for a refund but some asked for the money to be transferred to Buy Rangers.

1. When did the RST invest it?
   

See answer to Question 7

1. How much interest did the RST make?
   

On advice, we are unable to disclose specific financial information without the agreement of our members.

1. How did the RST differentiate between those who had invested on 'x' date as opposed to 'y' date? Once they differentiated between who had lost money and who still had a share of the £92k to come back did they offer a commensurate amount of interest with the refunds? If not, where is the extra (interest) money?
   

Gersave rules did not take interest into account. Participants were refunded the amount they paid into Gersave minus the amount paid for shares. It should be noted that Gersave rules allowed for 5% of participants money to be used for administration costs. No money was ever deducted for costs.

1. Was there a cut-off date when they stopped pumping Gersave donations in to the oldco? What date exactly did the RST decide it was a lost cause to keep investing Gersave cash in to the club?
   

When Gersave was set up we agreed with the Club that we would buy unissued shares from the rights issue in 2004. These were priced at £1 per share. When we bought the first tranche in 2007 we negotiated a price of 59.6p. However, after this the price steadily declined and the instability around the Club made further purchases difficult to arrange.

1. Was money for GERSAVE taken after administration?
   

As Gersave monies were paid by standing order rather than direct debit, the RST had no control over what came in. Standing orders must be cancelled by the individual rather than the organisation receiving money. Members were advised to do so.

Final Thought

I have spoken to quite a number of people over the last few days. None of them, not one, can get over the fact Mark is on the board. They all say that they would never join whilst he was there and that most believe he is the reason that the membership remains quite small.

Would it not be in the RST interest if Mark was to step down of the board to allow for more members to join?

That would depend on who you spoke to. There is no evidence to suggest that membership would increase if Mark stepped down. Mark is a highly valued member of the RST Board who continues to put much of his time into RST work, which is ultimately for the benefit of the club we all love. The vast majority of people making these comments have never met or spoken to Mark and are basing them on smears and innuendo that they have read on Internet message boards.

From what I have seen, he is THE reason most won’t join and the (perceived) financial irregularities being unanswered clearly is the other main reason.

Our accounts are independently audited each year by a highly respected company. Once again, there have been no financial irregularities.

A suggestion from me personally:

Ask Mark to step down from the board for the good of the RST

We are an organisation with a democratically elected Board. Mark was elected unanimously last October. As previously stated, Mark is a valuable and hard working board member.

Don’t allow controversial figures (I use Chris Graham’s name here only for example) like Chris to side step the normal voting/election procedures.

Our rules allow the Board to co-opt members in certain circumstances and we will continue to do so if circumstances dictate we should. This is ratified at the next AGM. For clarity, Chris Graham is not on the board of the RST.

Investigate all the alleged financial woes and then publish the results.

We have - see above.

Be totally “open book” on finances from now on with visibility of those accounts on the website (maybe just in a member’s only place?).

The accounts were on our old website and were available for anyone to access. They are on the members’ only section of our new website but we will look at changing that.

We believe this reflects an “open book” policy, but we are always open to suggestions from our members.

[bluepeter 5,627]

Right guys, NamibianBear has done some great work here, don't get this thread locked by descending into bickering and personal abuse. Criticism, comments, debate, etc are all welcome as always, personal abuse and mindless bickering is not.

We don't want to go down this route again: http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=255493

[gogzy 31,195]

Lot to read. Good work NB.

[BEARGER 339]

Right riveting read, well done NB. Also well done the Trust in providing answers.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Well NB, you got answers.............I don't want to get into a slanging match with anyone on here..............but find it strange no mention of the people of the Independent Legal Team

As for one of my questions re llist of successes....................have to say the padding out to make it look as if a lot has been done, when in fact some of them are ludicrous .....Lip reader omg...........Created over 4000 shareholders in the old company , yet they have nowhere near this membership.

The 250k that went straight to the Club in the IPO...........surely they they deducted expenses and membership fees from that. So would say 250k is a gross figure they received.

And found it embarrassing that they only in the last year introduced

Over the last year we have introduced a new CRM system managing the membership database, proper cash handling procedures, a data protection policy, we have a set of new rules approved by the FCA, new election rules, an unqualified audit report, a new capital funding share scheme, a new website and a driven board with a bit of vision

This should have been done from day 1 ........I mean they were still using Direct Shardeals name and FSA approval long after DSL stopped trading.

I will leave it at that just now............you got answers , well done but holes in their reply are noticeable.

[Bertent 2,081]

So in short if you ignore RM and its malcontent posters all is well and things are blossoming.

[Harry Callahan 9]

From what I have seen, he is THE reason most won’t join

What sort of number would folk expect to see the membership rise by if MD was to step aside?

[eosmhdo 1,879]

Well thats all that explained.

Where do I sign up?

[eosmhdo 1,879]

What sort of number would folk expect to see the membership rise by if MD was to step aside?

About 18 stones lighter

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,043]

• Orchestrated the We Deserve Better Campaign, questioning the high risk spending strategy and lack of long term vision for the Club
  

and yet their choice was TBK's that contained guys of the old brigade

[bawsburst 1,381]

So is Harris a liar or just incorrect

he was pretty specific in his statement, seems to be a problem as to saying what Harris is perceived to be here.

No, this is not correct.

The reasons for Mr Harris making these incorrect allegations are best known to himself; however, we can only conclude they were made in order to distort the truth to further his own interests.

[thehost 11,061]

Well played by the RST for responding so fully.

Last time I checked knowingly issuing cheques without sufficient funds, or bouncing, was fraud.

Has the law changed?

[NamibianBear 1,851]

So is Harris a liar or just incorrect

he was pretty specific in his statement, seems to be a problem as to saying what Harris is perceived to be here.

No, this is not correct.

The reasons for Mr Harris making these incorrect allegations are best known to himself; however, we can only conclude they were made in order to distort the truth to further his own interests.

Actually, I think its been answered as forcefully as possibly without incurring any legal implications. Read it between the lines and it says that he is INCORRECT in what he states and we don't actually really know why he did say that but guess it was for ulterior motives?

[Harry Callahan 9]

Well played by the RST for responding so fully.

Last time I checked knowingly issuing cheques without sufficient funds, or bouncing, was fraud.

Has the law changed?

Are the circumstances regarding when the cheques were written/banked known in this instance?

The legal advice concluded that it would be unreasonable to ask Mr. Dingwall to resign in this instance and the Board agreed that he acted in good faith from the outset and far from profiting he was in fact ultimately, personally out of pocket.

Or are the 'Legal advisers' being questioned here as well?

[NamibianBear 1,851]

Well played by the RST for responding so fully.

Last time I checked knowingly issuing cheques without sufficient funds, or bouncing, was fraud.

Has the law changed?

I have not lived in the UK now for 9 years (although I do still have a UK bank account). As far as am aware (maybe a bank operator could clarify?) it states it is illegal to KNOWINGLY issue...... and thats where most individuals can get away with it. Maybe I am wrong?

[DougieGers 26]

A lot of good work. Some very interesting answers. Some seem a bit padded such as there accomplishments. With regards to board members being elected. I am not a member of the RST due to MD as he does not speak for me as part of the rangers support and I disagree with plenty that he says. Every election he is unanimously voted onto the board so my one vote against wouldn't achieve anything and I refuse to be a member where he is my spokesman. Thus while he is the spokesman I will not join. I don't mind him being a RST member but while he is in his current capacity I will not join.

[thehost 11,061]

Are the circumstances regarding when the cheques were written/banked known in this instance?

Or are the 'Legal advisers' being questioned here as well?

I merely asked a question about the law Harry. No need for you to get so jittery.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Actually, I think its been answered as forcefully as possibly without incurring any legal implications. Read it between the lines and it says that he is INCORRECT in what he states and we don't actually really know why he did say that but guess it was for ulterior motives?

Same could be said for the wroding of the reply to that question, after all NB this is a Trust we're talking about and if they went to the bother of getting this unnamed Independent Legal Team to look into it, surely they would and should have taken action on this guy Harris , after all it was a very public and detailed letter he put out there.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

I have not lived in the UK now for 9 years (although I do still have a UK bank account). As far as am aware (maybe a bank operator could clarify?) it states it is illegal to KNOWINGLY issue...... and thats where most individuals can get away with it. Maybe I am wrong?

You are indeed right re the word Knowingly, but this is a businessman that these allegations are centered on. A previous reply from someone on the rst who post here said that he did not realise the cheque would be presented quickly, that begs the question why was the cheque not dated for a later date.

[Harry Callahan 9]

I merely asked a question about the law Harry. No need for you to get so jittery.

It's what you were implying mate and you know it.

Many of the questions and answers up there are almost completely irrelevant, it's all about that 1 man in question and how he is perceived.

[Hammy McConville 3]

I have to hold my hand up and say I'm out of touch with the goings on within the RST, and apart from seeing Mark Dingwall on the telly, usually bumping his gums and playing the victim card, I know little about the man.

That said, much of the OP seems to revolve around Mark Dingwall, and that in itself is a worry, given his position.

The way I read it is; basically Alan Harris, who was the Chairman of RST, has stated that Mark Dingwall got a substantial loan, and the RST are calling him a liar.

The explanation is that Mark Dingwall pledged charity money to RST and couldn't pay it, so was allowed to pay it over time... a loan by another name I think!

Meanwhile, Mark Dingwall wrote two cheques for the RST and both bounced.

My feeling on that is not only did it create a conflict of interest, but Mark Dingwall must surely have known he didn't have the funds as he wrote the cheques, the last time I looked, that is at very best, dodgy!

The RST talk about Alan Harris trying to 'further his own goals' but make no mention of what they believe those goals to be, strange then that they can dismiss his claims out of hand.

They have apparently been considering necessary action since September though 10 months, quite a consideration if I might say so.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

A lot of good work. Some very interesting answers. Some seem a bit padded such as there accomplishments. With regards to board members being elected. I am not a member of the RST due to MD as he does not speak for me as part of the rangers support and I disagree with plenty that he says. Every election he is unanimously voted onto the board so my one vote against wouldn't achieve anything and I refuse to be a member where he is my spokesman. Thus while he is the spokesman I will not join. I don't mind him being a RST member but while he is in his current capacity I will not join.

Fair comment there Bud.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

I have to hold my hand up and say I'm out of touch with the goings on within the RST, and apart from seeing Mark Dingwall on the telly, usually bumping his gums and playing the victim card, I know little about the man.

That said, much of the OP seems to revolve around Mark Dingwall, and that in itself is a worry, given his position.

The way I read it is; basically Alan Harris, who was the Chairman of RST, has stated that Mark Dingwall got a substantial loan, and the RST are calling him a liar.

The explanation is that Mark Dingwall pledged charity money to RST and couldn't pay it, so was allowed to pay it over time... a loan by another name I think!

Meanwhile, Mark Dingwall wrote two cheques for the RST and both bounced.

My feeling on that is not only did it create a conflict of interest, but Mark Dingwall must surely have known he didn't have the funds as he wrote the cheques, the last time I looked, that is at very best, dodgy!

The RST talk about Alan Harris trying to 'further his own goals' but make no mention of what they believe those goals to be, strange then that they can dismiss his claims out of hand.

They have apparently been considering necessary action since September though 10 months, quite a consideration if I might say so.

Well put over Bud.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

The Gersave issue brings up more questions than answers

Oh and the answers seem to be somewhat different from what the poster RST previously said

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

Well played by the RST for responding so fully.

Last time I checked knowingly issuing cheques without sufficient funds, or bouncing, was fraud.

Has the law changed?

That has never been fraud.

Me using your bank details to buy stuff is fraud.

Sending out cheques in your own name regardless if there is money in your account or not has never been fraud.