Answers To the Questions Posed to RST

[bawsburst 1,381]

That's unnecessary. The 'lassie' is a board member of the RST and is here attempting to defend their position. She's more than welcome to do so.

Unnecessary as it may appear it is a legitimate question, there are more than enough less than publicity shy spokesmen who are conspicuous by their absence in promoting the RST opinion here.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Great, look forward to your take on it all at the end!

Bud I said from the off well done and said well done when they replied..............but various people are finding holes in their replies especially re one of my particular questions you included......list their successes over the 10 and a bit years...........this has been torn to shreds by people not ranting or raving or calling names........but by reasonable means. MY view is that they struggled to find any and come up with the rather poor excuses they have classed as successes.

Also their reply about the guy Harris, they never answered the direct question was he lying they merely dodged it and made out the guy was making it up and to prove this we have had the usual poster on singing their praises and saying it's up to Harris to respond.

It's not up to Harris he made public his concerns in a letter so if he is lying they should have acted upon this, not try and turn the tables on Harris, also this Independent Legal team that they got to look into everything re money and dingwall.........how was this legal team , after all they wanted to know the names of the mystery panel that was looking into our Club.

I have read and reread the replies and have to say, I think they may be a stranger to the truth in many of them.

[govanblue 16,847]

Prevented the sale and leaseback of Ibrox Stadium - Really? The RST sole-handedly prevented this?

Compiled a 15 point plan for the future of the club - ..and in what way, was this 15 point (or any point) plan taken on board and implemented by the club?

Introduced a new CRM system to manage membership - Please explain in which capacity this is deemed as a success?

Compiled reports for the Club on safety issues fans encountered in Bucharest, Stuttgart and Pamplona and presented them to the Club - This would have been compiled regardless

Wrote an acquisition plan for a client who wanted to underwrite a fans buy-out of the Club - As no one led a fan buy out then how is this classed as a success?

Asked a number of pertinent questions at Club AGMs regarding the running of the Club and its finances - But having been given the brush off, decided not to enquire any further.

Orchestrated the We Deserve Better Campaign, questioning the high risk spending strategy and lack of long term vision for the Club - And the outcome of this was what exactly. Please explain why it was a success.

Presented the Sam English Bowl to the Club - This could have been done by anyone and hardly constitutes a success

Sponsored the Walter Tull Trophy between Rangers and Tottenham fans - See above

Exposed Neil The Bigot as a bigot by seeking the expertise of a lip-reader - A lip reader wasn't required. It was a known fact long beforehand.

Bloody hell!

Haven't read the whole thread, but when you see it like that, it's not a particularly impressive list of achievements, is it? - especially if you assume that they have likely cherry-picked those "successes"

Anybody want a list of what the RM Sponsors' Fund has achieved since it formed in December?

[Taipan 580]

Great, look forward to your take on it all at the end!

Just as a total side bar, the maximum period any one director can hold office is 12 consecutive years. This is part of the Supporters Direct recommended election rules which the RST has adopted.

What would be your thoughts on this being significantly reduced to say 4 or 6 i.e.2 terms of 2 years or 3?

Thus creating a more fluid board but perhaps permitting more involvement.

The change to the rules would require FCA approval and I'm thinking out loud after reading this thread but I'd be keen to hear your (and ors) views.

[NamibianBear 1,851]

Bloody hell!

Haven't read the whole thread, but when you see it like that, it's not a particularly impressive list of achievements, does it? - especially if you assume that they have likely cherry-picked those "successes"

Anybody want a list of what the RM Sponsors' Fund has achieved since it formed in December?

Is one of them "successes" to get NB his shirt

[govanblue 16,847]

Is one of them "successes" to get NB his shirt

There's a good chance I'll be heading to the post office tomorrow

[NamibianBear 1,851]

Just as a total side bar, the maximum period any one director can hold office is 12 consecutive years. This is part of the Supporters Direct recommended election rules which the RST has adopted.

What would be your thoughts on this being significantly reduced to say 4 or 6 i.e.2 terms of 2 years or 3?

Thus creating a more fluid board but perhaps permitting more involvement.

The change to the rules would require FCA approval and I'm thinking out loud after reading this thread but I'd be keen to hear your (and ors) views.

12 years is too long. I represent the Namibian International angling teams (as a foreigner!) and the longest they allow is 10 years, not consecutive but total. That's not just angling but is the Namibian law on any sports body using National colours. It works.

A vote (at AGM) of the entire board every year (with the possible exception of treasurer/finance director/whatever you call it as they have knowledge of the accounts then) with the maximum term being a cumulative 10 years would be my suggestion.

[Lisburnranger 36]

Bud I said from the off well done and said well done when they replied..............but various people are finding holes in their replies especially re one of my particular questions you included......list their successes over the 10 and a bit years...........this has been torn to shreds by people not ranting or raving or calling names........but by reasonable means. MY view is that they struggled to find any and come up with the rather poor excuses they have classed as successes.

Also their reply about the guy Harris, they never answered the direct question was he lying they merely dodged it and made out the guy was making it up and to prove this we have had the usual poster on singing their praises and saying it's up to Harris to respond.

It's not up to Harris he made public his concerns in a letter so if he is lying they should have acted upon this, not try and turn the tables on Harris, also this Independent Legal team that they got to look into everything re money and dingwall.........how was this legal team , after all they wanted to know the names of the mystery panel that was looking into our Club.

I have read and reread the replies and have to say, I think they may be a stranger to the truth in many of them.

Re. Harris. The only person who knows whether Harris was mistaken or deliberately misrepresented the facts, is Mr Harris himself. Nevertheless, he took the decision to publicly accuse RST board members of impropriety despite having no evidence of this. It is a fairly logical conclusion to reach, that he chose to do this in pursuit of his own agenda.

I don't know how much clearer we can make this.

[NamibianBear 1,851]

12 years is too long. I represent the Namibian International angling teams (as a foreigner!) and the longest they allow is 10 years, not consecutive but total. That's not just angling but is the Namibian law on any sports body using National colours. It works.

A vote (at AGM) of the entire board every year (with the possible exception of treasurer/finance director/whatever you call it as they have knowledge of the accounts then) with the maximum term being a cumulative 10 years would be my suggestion.

Just a thought; how many of the current board would be ineligible (i.e does the controversial figure come into this) to stand again if you lowered the time allowed to stand?

[NamibianBear 1,851]

Re. Harris. The only person who knows whether Harris was mistaken or deliberately misrepresented the facts, is Mr Harris himself. Nevertheless, he took the decision to publicly accuse RST board members of impropriety despite having no evidence of this. It is a fairly logical conclusion to reach, that he chose to do this in pursuit of his own agenda.

I don't know how much clearer we can make this.

I have seen this come up now a couple of times.

Personally, I think they are asking you to come out directly and call him a liar which you are, quite obviously, not going to do.

Mexican stand-off - can we move on?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Re. Harris. The only person who knows whether Harris was mistaken or deliberately misrepresented the facts, is Mr Harris himself. Nevertheless, he took the decision to publicly accuse RST board members of impropriety despite having no evidence of this. It is a fairly logical conclusion to reach, that he chose to do this in pursuit of his own agenda.

I don't know how much clearer we can make this.

My reply would be...........why did you guys not serve legal papers on him.

[Lisburnranger 36]

My reply would be...........why did you guys not serve legal papers on him.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We want to engage with supporters and answer questions that they have. There are fans out there who (you might struggle to believe this) who don't agree with us and don't support us at this time. The challenge for us is to change the minds of these people through our actions. Serving legal papers on fellow supporters would do nothing to further the aims of the RST. Sure, we might have got a positive verdict against AH, but we would then appear as bully boys picking on supporters and that is the last thing we want. We will continue to challenge those who spread inaccurate and untruthful stories, whether by accident or deliberate act but we will do it through the communication channels we have with our members and the wider support.

[Allanger 625]

Re. Harris. The only person who knows whether Harris was mistaken or deliberately misrepresented the facts, is Mr Harris himself. Nevertheless, he took the decision to publicly accuse RST board members of impropriety despite having no evidence of this. It is a fairly logical conclusion to reach, that he chose to do this in pursuit of his own agenda.

I don't know how much clearer we can make this.

Using your fair logic what would you conclude was Harris's agenda?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We want to engage with supporters and answer questions that they have. There are fans out there who (you might struggle to believe this) who don't agree with us and don't support us at this time. The challenge for us is to change the minds of these people through our actions. Serving legal papers on fellow supporters would do nothing to further the aims of the RST. Sure, we might have got a positive verdict against AH, but we would then appear as bully boys picking on supporters and that is the last thing we want. We will continue to challenge those who spread inaccurate and untruthful stories, whether by accident or deliberate act but we will do it through the communication channels we have with our members and the wider support.

Understand as to where you are coming from, but you are a Trust so you should have gone for him if he was indeed lying. Simple to explain as to why you did this to protect the name of the Trust............I could go on and give the main reason why people think the name is tarnished.........but will stay clear of that.

[Lisburnranger 36]

Using your fair logic what would you conclude was Harris's agenda?

I wasn't on the board at the time and I don't know the man so I genuinely don't know. I'd be interested to hear why he wrote what he did because I can't see any benefit for him.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Lisburn

You spoke of Harris' agenda in a post earlier. Can I ask what was his agenda ?

[Allanger 625]

I wasn't on the board at the time and I don't know the man so I genuinely don't know. I'd be interested to hear why he wrote what he did because I can't see any benefit for him.

Surely there would be benefit if what he wrote was the truth?

[Lisburnranger 36]

Understand as to where you are coming from, but you are a Trust so you should have gone for him if he was indeed lying. Simple to explain as to why you did this to protect the name of the Trust............I could go on and give the main reason why people think the name is tarnished.........but will stay clear of that.

I wasn't around at the time so I wasn't involved in the decision. I don't think anyone involved at the time would have thought that 3 years on it would still such a big topic though. I have no doubts that the board members' made what they felt was the best decision, and did so in good faith.

[Lisburnranger 36]

Surely there would be benefit if what he wrote was the truth?

By the time he wrote his post on Gersnet, the auditors had already ruled that the monies due were not loans. He may have genuinely believed that for accounting purposes they should have been treated as loans but the auditors disagreed, and ultimately it's their opinion that counts. Whether inadvertently or deliberate, he was wrong. Posting on Gersnet was never going to change that

[Lisburnranger 36]

Lisburn

You spoke of Harris' agenda in a post earlier. Can I ask what was his agenda ?

I wasn't on the board at the time and I don't know the man so I genuinely don't know. I'd be interested to hear why he wrote what he did because I can't see any benefit for him.

[Allanger 625]

By the time he wrote his post on Gersnet, the auditors had already ruled that the monies due were not loans. He may have genuinely believed that for accounting purposes they should have been treated as loans but the auditors disagreed, and ultimately it's their opinion that counts. Whether inadvertently or deliberate, he was wrong. Posting on Gersnet was never going to change that

Thanks for the reply and sorry I did not respond as I was off doing other things

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

What exactly do you want to know?

You categorically stated that some of the money had been refunded and the rest used to buy shares in the new company

It would appear that is not the case

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I wasn't on the board at the time and I don't know the man so I genuinely don't know. I'd be interested to hear why he wrote what he did because I can't see any benefit for him.

In that case is it really fair to say the guy was working to an agenda ?

[Lisburnranger 36]

In that case is it really fair to say the guy was working to an agenda ?

Would you suggest that he had no reason or motive when posting?

[Taipan 580]

You categorically stated that some of the money had been refunded and the rest used to buy shares in the new company

It would appear that is not the case

I ran off the Gersave scheme personally Swally, I'm happy to account to you if you're an RST member, unfortunately if you're not it's not public info. If you are member PM me contact details.