Answers To the Questions Posed to RST

[gogzy 31,195]

Harry dingwall

[Lisburnranger 36]

I concur with the 1st part Lisburn - though its hardly exonerating.

I wasnt aware of the second part re Harris - when did all this happen ?

It's not meant to be exonerating. Nobody is denying the fact that cheques were bounced and that shouldn't have happened. It is the case though that MD acted in good faith and whilst doing the wrong thing, he did it for the right reasons. To describe the outstanding monies as loans however, is just plain wrong. They were in effect unpaid invoices and the board at the time chose to allow MD the time to pay the monies due. Only one person tried to describe them as loans, and the auditors disagreed with that opinion.

I wasn't on the board when all this happened and I was interested to know the full story. Experience has taught me that it is always best to get both sides of the story. I sent Allan Harris a message via LinkedIn mainly to see if after 3 years he was still of the same opinion. I know he got it as he has viewed my profile, but no response has been forthcoming. From the information available I see nothing which makes me doubt the version given by those who were on the RST board at that time. AH's concerns are all centred around "free loans" which wasn't the case.

[Harry Callahan 9]

Harry dingwall

If I was I wouldn't be posting on here ;-)

[RST 19]

Dont you think for clarity and respectability it would have been better if a stronger statement had been released and Mark Dingwall had done the honourable thing and resigned to protect the Trust's reputation ?

What I think is irrelevant really. We issued the statement and took the legal advice given. When you're on a Board or committee there is a collective responsibility you have to take.

[bawsburst 1,381]

Yep B I was aware of the "knowingly" - but making it more difficult to prove does not negate the fact that a criminal act may have been committed.

Apart what i remember from memory (albeit it is slowly failing ;-) ) I also had a wee look here...

http://www.advicegui...g_e/cheques.htm

Why the very apparent reluctance to call a spade a spade here, RST continually runs away from the $64,000 question in my experience these sort of questions are avoided for a reason.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

It's not meant to be exonerating. Nobody is denying the fact that cheques were bounced and that shouldn't have happened. It is the case though that MD acted in good faith and whilst doing the wrong thing, he did it for the right reasons. To describe the outstanding monies as loans however, is just plain wrong. They were in effect unpaid invoices and the board at the time chose to allow MD the time to pay the monies due. Only one person tried to describe them as loans, and the auditors disagreed with that opinion.

I wasn't on the board when all this happened and I was interested to know the full story. Experience has taught me that it is always best to get both sides of the story. I sent Allan Harris a message via LinkedIn mainly to see if after 3 years he was still of the same opinion. I know he got it as he has viewed my profile, but no response has been forthcoming. From the information available I see nothing which makes me doubt the version given by those who were on the RST board at that time. AH's concerns are all centred around "free loans" which wasn't the case.

I appreciate your summation Lisburn. Thank you,.

As I said above I think a different response would have perhaps had a better effect on the Trust's reputation. But we are all "experts" with hindsight.

[Harry Callahan 9]

Gotta love the online Rangers support, on FF I was regularly seen as being anti RST regarding opinion on their policies, now I'm Mark fucking Dingwall.............

Good night bears, take care.

[RST 19]

Why the very apparent reluctance to call a spade a spade here, RST continually runs away from the $64,000 question in my experience these sort of questions are avoided for a reason.

You asked the question if he was mistaken or deliberately lied. I really can't answer this as I am not Alan Harris. What I do know is that he was told that it was regarding tables at a couple of events. I'm not aware of him investigating further than that. He made assumptions based on that information alone and drafted a letter to our auditors. When it became apparent what he had done the rest of the Board contacted the auditors to inform them of exactly what had happened.

[bawsburst 1,381]

You asked the question if he was mistaken or deliberately lied. I really can't answer this as I am not Alan Harris. What I do know is that he was told that it was regarding tables at a couple of events. I'm not aware of him investigating further than that. He made assumptions based on that information alone and drafted a letter to our auditors. When it became apparent what he had done the rest of the Board contacted the auditors to inform them of exactly what had happened.

The use of the word incorrect as opposed to false is a get out, are you telling us you do not know the facts of the matter, because if you did you would be fully aware whither Harris was incorrect or deliberately gave false witness.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

I took him to the small grab round the neck court.

Got more than I was due funnily enough

The way all things like that should be settled.

Shitty thing for a pal to do. Obviously not much of a loss though, well... for him it was.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

Its not quite the same RST - though I appreciate the efforts which have been made here by the RST.

But written statements at the time are not the same as personal testimony or answers to specific questions a few years later after the event. Thats not an attempt to undermine either the work done by Nambian, nor the answers given, but as it stands at the moment its a bit like hearing only one side of the story - its like making a judgement in a trial having only listened to one side - either the defence or the prosecution.

Furthermore the point which Host raises is correct in legal terms - the issue of a cheque(s) which are not honoured by the bank is classed as fraud - I'm surprised the auditors or legal representatives who you said were involved did not raise this.

It's not fraud D'Art. If the cheques were in his own name, it's impossible to be fraud.

Hence why nothing from lawyers.

Disclaimer: in no way do I support Mark Dingwall.

I'm not a JCB.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

Given the shite he has had to take, if you were in his shoes, would you accept an olive branch?

So you agree that the actions of MD haven't warranted "the shite he's had to take"?

Some would argue he has got away with murder.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

It's not fraud D'Art. If the cheques were in his own name, it's impossible to be fraud.

Hence why nothing from lawyers.

Disclaimer: in no way do I support Mark Dingwall.

I'm not a JCB.

RWB

The crime appears to be complete if the cheque is issued by the holder knowing that there were insufficient funds within the account to cover the value of the cheque. See the links provided. But as Lisburn said in a previous post we could go round and round in circles with this one with the knowingly part almost impossible to prove.

[Harry Callahan 9]

So you agree that the actions of MD haven't warranted "the shite he's had to take"?

Some would argue he has got away with murder.

Some being RM regulars?

Murder? Get things into context lad.

[RST 19]

Just out of curiosity, what shite has he had to take ?

Are you serious?

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,689]

I'm not into the RST. They don't represent my love of Rangers. They are free to represent their membership and grow in numbers as far as I am concerned. The reference to RM in the OP is a tad insulting though. A question of my own.... are all the board membersseason ticket holders (Scottish based ones)?

[Lisburnranger 36]

I'm not into the RST. They don't represent my love of Rangers. They are free to grow and represent their members as far as I am concerned. I am pissed off at the reference to Rangers Media though. Sounds like a sly dig. A wee question of my own .... does Mark have a season ticket? Do all the Board members?

The questions came from Rangers Media that is why they are referenced in the answers.

[The Beast 9,264]

Are you serious?

I'd like to know as well. What persecutions has this poor soul had to endure?

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,689]

The questions came from Rangers Media that is why they are referenced in the answers.

I know. I read the original thread. Can you answer the STH question?

[Lisburnranger 36]

I know. I read the original thread. Can you answer the STH question?

I honestly don't know if all board members are season ticket holders. I don't think it matters. All board members make a large time commitment when they get involved.

Not sure why you were pissed off at the reference to Rangers Media if you knew who had asked the questions

[bawsburst 1,381]

Are you serious?

Are you ?

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=255775&st=80#entry1061219640

[Harry Callahan 9]

I'd like to know as well. What persecutions has this poor soul had to endure?

I would have thought such a high standing member of RM would know without having to ask............or are you judging on hearsay per chance?

Tales on the playground maybe?

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,689]

I honestly don't know if all board members are season ticket holders. I don't think it matters. All board members make a large time commitment when they get involved.

Not sure why you were pissed off at the reference to Rangers Media if you knew who had asked the questions

Get back to me when you know. I'd like to think if they represent our Club they could invest a few hundred quid to watch our team play at Ibrox like 38,000 of us did last year. I judge people by their actions, not by internet posts.

[The Beast 9,264]

I would have thought such a high standing member of RM would know without having to ask............or are you judging on hearsay per chance?

Tales on the playground maybe?

You're losing it Harry, that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Harry Callahan 9]

Get back to me when you know. I'd like to think if they represent our Club they could invest a few hundred quid to watch our team play at Ibrox like 38,000 of us did last year. I judge people by their actions, not by internet posts.

Really stupid or just confirming the fact?