Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

[Guest Andypendek]

Completely enthrallling thread.

When I posted earlier about the FF guys being immature, this is exactly what I meant. They ask some questions, don't get a reply that either suits them or is given quickly enough for them and out come the suggestions of evasion or deceit. Note: in the real world, people don't always do what you want, when you want. You'll either get your answers or you won't. If you do you can debate them; if you don't I feel people will draw their own conclusion from that. Why feel the need to display, dare I say it, paranoia? RM is anti-trust! Funny if it wasn't sad. Were you 2 to read what is being posted rather than what you want to see, you'd see quite obviously none of us regular joes have a clue what is going on, and have bemoaned the damage to the RST that is certainly being done.

All we can do is read what either side posts, and decide who is acting more to our tastes. As one of you posted, I have decided to believe Frankie. That would be because he has never lied to me, never bullshitted me, always been friendly to me and seems, in the old fashioned expression, to be a really good bear. I dunno you 2 from Adam. Raised as I was in the BB tradition of loyalty, I shall be in the camp of the person I know until that person is shown to be a liar, a bullshitter or unfriendly. That's what being part of a group, a club, is all about. Standing with people through thick and thin. It's difficult to see what people who wish to be driving the Rangers Supporters Trust have going for them if simple concepts like loyalty and friendship are alien.

[JR 1,480]

Frankie recruited a large number of members for the RST from this very forum.

Members who shared Frankie's vision for a future of the trust.

You can surely forgive them for disagreeing with the actions and future plans of the RST.

I certainly do not share the visions presently being circulated, be it overtly or covertly.

I'm sure the mods and admins will repeat the same words, but I would advise not speaking about the collective RM membership as ignorant.

That vision has not changed despite what may be circulating. I know there are a number of RST members on this site and the main reason I have been posting is to get the other side across. Serious allegations have been made yet it appears that no-one can substantiate them by presenting facts. MD's post gave dates and times where e-mails were sent - facts that can be proved.

And that's absolutely fine, we like to hear the facts from 'the other side' as you say.

I find this "two sides" approach interesting...is it true that you cannot discuss whats occurred over on FF without the discussion being terminated? Some posters from FF have posted that allegation on here....

That doesn't seem very "two sided" to me if true......yet it's expected to happen here on RM.

[Coopermania 1]

I know one thing. We are all Rangers fans and want a good relationship with the club. Thats why I joined the RST. Im not an active member in any way, just a number, but that in itself I believed would help, even in a tiny way.

Yes this is a tough time and emotions are high, God forbid we have timmy on here reading this

Im not bright enough to have a magic answer, but somehow we must pull together.

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

[Jimenez 1]

I know one thing. We are all Rangers fans and want a good relationship with the club. Thats why I joined the RST. Im not an active member in any way, just a number, but that in itself I believed would help, even in a tiny way.

Yes this is a tough time and emotions are high, God forbid we have timmy on here reading this

Im not bright enough to have a magic answer, but somehow we must pull together.

Top post mate.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Frankie recruited a large number of members for the RST from this very forum.

Members who shared Frankie's vision for a future of the trust.

You can surely forgive them for disagreeing with the actions and future plans of the RST.

I certainly do not share the visions presently being circulated, be it overtly or covertly.

I'm sure the mods and admins will repeat the same words, but I would advise not speaking about the collective RM membership as ignorant.

That vision has not changed despite what may be circulating. I know there are a number of RST members on this site and the main reason I have been posting is to get the other side across. Serious allegations have been made yet it appears that no-one can substantiate them by presenting facts. MD's post gave dates and times where e-mails were sent - facts that can be proved.

And that's absolutely fine, we like to hear the facts from 'the other side' as you say.

Glad to hear it. This site has been used to promote a series of allegations aimed at 12 RST Board members who didn't resign. One of is being accused of leaking information (it'll be interesting to see if that continues ) the others are being accused of holding 'negative, political behind-the-scenes meetings, wanting a militant approach (none of which are true) and voting 9-2 (not 8-2) in favour of a committee to 'restrict and control activities' rather than it's intended purpose which was to oversee our activities and to ensure we were operating within the 'rules'. We are, after all, accountable to our members.

[contacts 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

A few senior RST board members have recently stated that if people cared for the RST they would now let it move on without further mudslinging etc. (not the exact words but I'm sure you know what I mean) The RST now have 7 or 8 new board members (some decent blokes amongst them) and it is time for the trust to move on to the next chapter.

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

A few senior RST board members have recently stated that if people cared for the RST they would now let it move on without further mudslinging etc. (not the exact words but I'm sure you know what I mean) The RST now have 7 or 8 new board members (some decent blokes amongst them) and it is time for the trust to move on to the next chapter.

And a few have also said that if the people who resigned had cared for the RST they would not have released such a statement.

[cooperonthewing 0]

I know one thing. We are all Rangers fans and want a good relationship with the club. Thats why I joined the RST. Im not an active member in any way, just a number, but that in itself I believed would help, even in a tiny way.

Yes this is a tough time and emotions are high, God forbid we have timmy on here reading this

Im not bright enough to have a magic answer, but somehow we must pull together.

If you want more involved mate PM me. We can always use another volunteer.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Given that it's over 48 hours since I asked, when will you be in a position to tell me?

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a time limit. I'll do so when I get a chance.

While you wait, maybe you could read through some of the posts already provided which explain a few of the more 'tendentious' stuff in MD's FF thread?

Or maybe even try giving your thoughts on the issues in our statement? Or are all the questions one way again?

Issues in your statement. Perhaps if it was more precise and gave specific examples.

You mention there being a 'leak' and that person is still there. I'm making the assumption that you knew who is was so why didn't you do something about it? It couldn't be very hard to plant some false information to this person only and catch them out.

How many 'negative, political behind-the-scenes briefings' took place? When did they take place and where? How many attended?

Formation of Special Tasks Commitee - was this to restrict and control or was it to ensure that when people were representing the Trust they did so according to the rules?

Attempts to release incorrect information when addressing the resignations of their former colleagues - surely you were able to refute this then if the information was incorrect.

Dismissing and denigrating the efforts of the resigned members - who did this and in what way?

We have documented and commented upon the issues regarding the split in the board however the remaining board members have failed to release this disappointing but serious information to the membership - wasn't that partially the reason for calling the SGM?

Just a few questions before the more difficult ones come along.

Can anyone answer this? Doesn't have to be Frankie.

[Jimenez 1]

Can anyone answer this? Doesn't have to be Frankie.

I think only Frankie or possibly contacts could answer your questions. The rest of us are out the loop and can only take educated guesses on who or what to believe.

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

A few senior RST board members have recently stated that if people cared for the RST they would now let it move on without further mudslinging etc. (not the exact words but I'm sure you know what I mean) The RST now have 7 or 8 new board members (some decent blokes amongst them) and it is time for the trust to move on to the next chapter.

And a few have also said that if the people who resigned had cared for the RST they would not have released such a statement.

Im glad they did release a statement because the RST members like myself deserved some sort of explanation. And im glad Dingwall released a counter statement explaning the other side. Id much rather have all this debate atm then deafening silence from all involved. Having everything discussed out in the open is restoring my lost faith in the trust after weeks of nothing.

I agree that the members should have been informed but the way it was done there was one resignation every week or so, some gave reasons others didn't. Some cited 'a split in the Board' but as we were unaware of this 'split' there was nothing we could say about it. The 'split' was a perception rather than a reality. We thought the best way of addressing this was to call the SGM to get things out in the open. Although 9 of the remaining Board attended, none of the 7 who resigned did. These are the facts. Maybe you will be able to attend our AGM (date to be announced) as i'm sure the subject will come up there also. The RST will strive to communicate with it's members much more frequently in future. We realise that we have performed poorly in the past regarding this and will address the issue.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Can anyone answer this? Doesn't have to be Frankie.

I think only Frankie or possibly contacts could answer your questions. The rest of us are out the loop and can only take educated guesses on who or what to believe.

I know but two of them are currently viewing this thread.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Completely enthrallling thread.

When I posted earlier about the FF guys being immature, this is exactly what I meant. They ask some questions, don't get a reply that either suits them or is given quickly enough for them and out come the suggestions of evasion or deceit. Note: in the real world, people don't always do what you want, when you want. You'll either get your answers or you won't. If you do you can debate them; if you don't I feel people will draw their own conclusion from that. Why feel the need to display, dare I say it, paranoia? RM is anti-trust! Funny if it wasn't sad. Were you 2 to read what is being posted rather than what you want to see, you'd see quite obviously none of us regular joes have a clue what is going on, and have bemoaned the damage to the RST that is certainly being done.

All we can do is read what either side posts, and decide who is acting more to our tastes. As one of you posted, I have decided to believe Frankie. That would be because he has never lied to me, never bullshitted me, always been friendly to me and seems, in the old fashioned expression, to be a really good bear. I dunno you 2 from Adam. Raised as I was in the BB tradition of loyalty, I shall be in the camp of the person I know until that person is shown to be a liar, a bullshitter or unfriendly. That's what being part of a group, a club, is all about. Standing with people through thick and thin. It's difficult to see what people who wish to be driving the Rangers Supporters Trust have going for them if simple concepts like loyalty and friendship are alien.

Firstly, can I say that I am not a regular poster on FF, in fact I haven't posted there for a while. I'm sure you'd agree that when derogatory details are posted about you and your colleagues, your first instinct is to defend. I first asked a question around 9.30 am on Monday. It is now 12.29 am on Thursday and I haven't had a reply, despite replies being given to several other posters (most who had complimented the individual in question). I also posted 7 questions regarding the 'Statement' (which again hasn't received a response) I don't think this is paranoia. I have not asked difficult questions (or perhaps I have) but I have received no answers.

I can totally understand your desire to side with Frankie on these issues as you don't know me. I know him to be a man of integrity and honour. He has been sold a story here which is not based on fact but what others want him to believe. I too was raised in the BB tradition of loyalty, I am loyal to the RST.

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

Known Mark for many years and not blind to his flaws. But this image which has been portrayed of him is untrue. And if any Rangers Fan had a hand in the Daily Record character assassination of him, then they should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

I refuse to believe any bear would go running to the press, least of all that gutter rhag. I said so at the time.

The threads were on here and FF at the time. The Daily Rhebel wouldn't have had to dig deep to take a swipe.

You'd be surprised. Revenge is a very emotive subject.

[Jimenez 1]

You'd be surprised. Revenge is a very emotive subject.

Well I sincerely hope that it isn't the case. Internal fighting is one matter but for an RST representative current or ex to go to the press after all the RST has done to combat them with regards to defending the club then that would be a sickening blow.

I'd like to believe as you say Frankie has been misled on this. From my time debating with him on RM he has been diplomatic, helpful, informative and above all else respectful. As have you from what little time you have spent here putting your point across.

[nvager 498]

It seems we have two people one a current board member of the RST and one a close friend of M. Dingwall disputing Frankie's account and the statement by the 7 members that resigned and issued their statement.. Then we have Frankie and Contacts who are part of the 7 that issued the statement. We then have a counter statement by M Dingwall on the FF site. Is that available to RM by the way? Can a copy be posted on RM?

The two sides are in disagreement and the current RST Boardmember has asked questions of Frankie. Frankie has yet to respond, but having had dealings with him in the past I am sure he will be well up to the task.

I for one would like to see Mr. Dingwall's statement from FF and Frankie's forthcoming reply to cooperonthewing, before saying more.

Most people on this site have a great respect for Frankie. Myself included. We are also a very open minded forum and like to get at the truth. So I look forward to more information becoming available. Frankie's word will however carry great weight on this forum. It would be dishonest to say otherwise, but let the facts speak for themselves.

I would also add that no matter what happens I would like to see a better relationship between all the factions as after all we are all RFC supporters at heart.

[Toni 2]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

[Jimenez 1]

It seems we have two people one a current board member of the RST and one a close friend of M. Dingwall disputing Frankie's account and the statement by the 7 members that resigned and issued their statement.. Then we have Frankie and Contacts who are part of the 7 that issued the statement. We then have a counter statement by M Dingwall on the FF site. Is that available to RM by the way? Can a copy be posted on RM?

The two sides are in disagreement and the current RST Boardmember has asked questions of Frankie. Frankie has yet to respond, but having had dealings with him in the past I am sure he will be well up to the task.

I for one would like to see Mr. Dingwall's statement from FF and Frankie's forthcoming reply to cooperonthewing, before saying more.

Most people on this site have a great respect for Frankie. Myself included. We are also a very open minded forum and like to get at the truth. So I look forward to more information becoming available. Frankie's word will however carry great weight on this forum. It would be dishonest to say otherwise, but let the facts speak for themselves.

I would also add that no matter what happens I would like to see a better relationship between all the factions as after all we are all RFC supporters at heart.

The reply was posted earlier in the thread by Manticore mate.

[Jimenez 1]

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

He's eager for a reply. I can fully understand why.

[Jimenez 1]

F.A.O nvager

I’ve been very disappointed that the seven members who left the RST chose to issue the statement they did on Saturday night.

Two months after Malcolm McNiven’s resignation to release such a tendentious document at 10pm the night before the Trust SGM was very peculiar. They chose to resign, they could have chosen to say any of what is in the statement weeks ago, it is now fair that they allow the RST to move on.

Anyone serious about the well-being of the Trust should surely have attended Special General Meeting to put forward their case in a forum where they could have cross-examined past and current members of the Board. And been cross-examined. Instead, the seven resigned members chose to issue a statement at 10pm the night before the meeting and in my eyes this behaviour is somewhat strange.

Disappointingly none of the seven attended the SGM today and explain themselves in person to the membership.

1/ In March three meetings were held between two Trust Board members and Rangers FC. As of now other Board members do not know what happened as no worthwhile minute of those meetings was produced.

2/ The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were then asked to set a date suitable to them for the next Board meeting where they could report back. Tuesday May 6th was chosen.

3/ At 2.39pm that day Malcolm McNiven attempted to cancel the meeting. Despite this - and 14 other emails he sent that afternoon in a somewhat unusual burst of energy - the other Board members held a properly constituted and quorate meeting with 11 present. For the record - the previous five Board meetings had been attended by 14,14, 13, 14 and 13.

4/ At 5.47pm that evening - the Board meeting was scheduled to start at 6pm - Malcolm forwarded an email he had sent to the club at 9.49am that morning asking for clarification on the matter of fans directorships as “I have no doubt that I will personally come under some flak tonight on this topic so any information would be useful.”

The club couldn’t provide any update to him.

5/ At the Board meeting the first item of business was the relationship with the club:-

“There was general dissatisfaction at late cancellations and frustrations that, of a Board of 19, only two people knew what was happening, the Directorship issue seemed to be being dragging on and that we needed to address the issue of communication as a Board. JG proposed that MM and SMcM be asked to provide a full report on the exact position re the Directorship and redevelopment. This was seconded by SL and passed unanimously.”

6/ Malcolm resigned the next morning.

7/ Formation of a Special Tasks Committee. A committee for Special Tasks - supervising the Trust's relations with outside bodies was proposed - the vote was 9-2 in favour, but as not all members were present it was decided to discuss the terms of reference and membership at a later meeting. Running the organisation’s affairs in accordance with our constitution and practises normally operated by other bodies rather than ‘making it up as we go along’ is, in my view, a perfectly healthy idea.

8/ Malcolm contacted Stephen Smith last Wednesday to ask if he could issue a statement to members at the Special General Meeting - he was asked by Stephen to submit a copy but did not do so until finally sending an email after 9pm on Saturday night and having it released onto the net less than an hour later. This despite two phone and three text messages to Malcolm and a conversation with Scott McMillan asking that Malcolm respond.

9/ ‘Unsuitability of date of the SGM’ and similar self-serving innuendo. The meeting was called timeously and according to the constitution. The mechanism for calling a meeting has previously been explained here - www.rangersmedia.com/showpo...&postcount=366

Not one of the seven resigned members raised an objection upon receipt of the Notice of Meeting 14 days earlier so why do so at 10pm the night before?

10/ “ We had been aware of a recent lack of support from certain sections of the board but felt this could be properly addressed during the close season.” So, was a “purge” of other Board members being planned by all or any of the seven who resigned this summer?

11/ “ We lament that our efforts now appear to have been in vain due to the premature, overly aggressive, and controlling actions of a small faction.” A “small faction” which wins votes unanamously? A small faction which they couldn’t deal with by means of a vote on the issues? Or a majority of Board members committed to ensuring that all who represent our membership play by the rules?

12/ Timing of resignations. Twist and turn as some may do, there remains the fact that the timing of resignations by some of those who have gone look suspiciously like the actions of a co-ordinated group designed to tease out the bad publicity engendered by the resignations as long as possible in order to maximise the harm to the Trust.

Today at the Special General Meeting eight new members of the Trust Board were elected by the membership.

The Trust is now back on track to promote our aims, objects and principles in the proper manner according to the constitution.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Following this debate and circumstance with intrigue Frankie, could you possibly post Mr Dingwalls riposte on here?

Here it is:

Some reflections on the Rangers Supporters Trust

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve been very disappointed that the seven members who left the RST chose to issue the statement they did on Saturday night.

Two months after Malcolm McNiven’s resignation to release such a tendentious document at 10pm the night before the Trust SGM was very peculiar. They chose to resign, they could have chosen to say any of what is in the statement weeks ago, it is now fair that they allow the RST to move on.

Anyone serious about the well-being of the Trust should surely have attended Special General Meeting to put forward their case in a forum where they could have cross-examined past and current members of the Board. And been cross-examined. Instead, the seven resigned members chose to issue a statement at 10pm the night before the meeting and in my eyes this behaviour is somewhat strange.

Disappointingly none of the seven attended the SGM today and explain themselves in person to the membership.

1/ In March three meetings were held between two Trust Board members and Rangers FC. As of now other Board members do not know what happened as no worthwhile minute of those meetings was produced.

2/ The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were then asked to set a date suitable to them for the next Board meeting where they could report back. Tuesday May 6th was chosen.

3/ At 2.39pm that day Malcolm McNiven attempted to cancel the meeting. Despite this - and 14 other emails he sent that afternoon in a somewhat unusual burst of energy - the other Board members held a properly constituted and quorate meeting with 11 present. For the record - the previous five Board meetings had been attended by 14,14, 13, 14 and 13.

4/ At 5.47pm that evening - the Board meeting was scheduled to start at 6pm - Malcolm forwarded an email he had sent to the club at 9.49am that morning asking for clarification on the matter of fans directorships as “I have no doubt that I will personally come under some flak tonight on this topic so any information would be useful.”

The club couldn’t provide any update to him.

5/ At the Board meeting the first item of business was the relationship with the club:-

“There was general dissatisfaction at late cancellations and frustrations that, of a Board of 19, only two people knew what was happening, the Directorship issue seemed to be being dragging on and that we needed to address the issue of communication as a Board. JG proposed that MM and SMcM be asked to provide a full report on the exact position re the Directorship and redevelopment. This was seconded by SL and passed unanimously.”

6/ Malcolm resigned the next morning.

7/ Formation of a Special Tasks Committee. A committee for Special Tasks - supervising the Trust's relations with outside bodies was proposed - the vote was 9-2 in favour, but as not all members were present it was decided to discuss the terms of reference and membership at a later meeting. Running the organisation’s affairs in accordance with our constitution and practises normally operated by other bodies rather than ‘making it up as we go along’ is, in my view, a perfectly healthy idea.

8/ Malcolm contacted Stephen Smith last Wednesday to ask if he could issue a statement to members at the Special General Meeting - he was asked by Stephen to submit a copy but did not do so until finally sending an email after 9pm on Saturday night and having it released onto the net less than an hour later. This despite two phone and three text messages to Malcolm and a conversation with Scott McMillan asking that Malcolm respond.

9/ ‘Unsuitability of date of the SGM’ and similar self-serving innuendo. The meeting was called timeously and according to the constitution. The mechanism for calling a meeting has previously been explained here - www.rangersmedia.com/showpo...&postcount=366

Not one of the seven resigned members raised an objection upon receipt of the Notice of Meeting 14 days earlier so why do so at 10pm the night before?

10/ “ We had been aware of a recent lack of support from certain sections of the board but felt this could be properly addressed during the close season.” So, was a “purge” of other Board members being planned by all or any of the seven who resigned this summer?

11/ “ We lament that our efforts now appear to have been in vain due to the premature, overly aggressive, and controlling actions of a small faction.” A “small faction” which wins votes unanamously? A small faction which they couldn’t deal with by means of a vote on the issues? Or a majority of Board members committed to ensuring that all who represent our membership play by the rules?

12/ Timing of resignations. Twist and turn as some may do, there remains the fact that the timing of resignations by some of those who have gone look suspiciously like the actions of a co-ordinated group designed to tease out the bad publicity engendered by the resignations as long as possible in order to maximise the harm to the Trust.

Today at the Special General Meeting eight new members of the Trust Board were elected by the membership.

The Trust is now back on track to promote our aims, objects and principles in the proper manner according to the constitution.

The members are now back in control of the organisation.

For those who requested it.

[Toni 2]

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

He's eager for a reply. I can fully understand why.

Frankie's posted a lot in this thread, although why the topic regarding Mr. Dingwall's only and especially?

I can understand anyones interest but his eagerness seems a little exaggerated more so than anyone elses.

[Jimenez 1]

Frankie's posted a lot in this thread, although why the topic regarding Mr. Dingwall's only and especially?

I can understand anyones interest but his eagerness seems a little exaggerated more so than anyone elses.

He's a board member of the RST. He has every right to ask questions when it is their reputation that the resignees have attacked.

What do you mean regarding Dingwall?

[cooperonthewing 0]

It appears two posters are after Frankie. Well knowing Frankie he will make a good response when his time allows. I think these two posters should just be patient. I am sure Frankie will respond at his earliest convenience.

Question to babyblueger and cooperonthewing: Are any of you on the current board of the RST or connected to Mr. Dinwall in any way. Can you be open about that?

This site has always been generally pro RST.

I think babyblueger said on an earlier post that he was close to a Board member. I will be open. I am a current Board member who is enraged at this 'Statement'. I have no particular loyalty to Mark Dingwall or indeed any fellow Board member. My loyalty is to the RST and it's members (my first loyalty is to RFC like all of us). I am not 'after' Frankie. He's a thoroughly decent bloke but he has been fed these stories about 'negative, political, behind-the-scenes briefings' and 'factions' by people he trusts. There is no evidence that any such meetings took place, there is no evidence that some Board members want a more militant approach (we couldn't do that anyway without a mandate from our members) and basically the whole statement has damaged the RST's reputation.

For someone who has no loyalty to Mr. Dingwall you have seemed quite impatient and persistent in acquiring answers off Frankie throughout this whole thread regarding the gentleman.

I am sorry if I come across as impatient. Frankie agreed to answer my question within 24-48 hours, I gave him that. It's now about 64 hours and I am still willing to wait. I have offered a comprimise whereby he cuts and pastes MD's post and highlights the sections that are untrue. I hope he takes that opportunity.