Statement From RST Resigned Board Members

[Frankie 505]

This is where I have a problem. There have been no responses to my questions on this or the previous questions I have asked.

I'm sorry but I don't have time to post responses to your questions immediately. I have a busy job and also a young family so I'm sure people are happy to wait for me to respond.

You obviously don't want to move on either. Instead you wish to conduct this business on open forums despite my urging that some things are best dealt with elsewhere. That is very disappointing.

Again though, I won’t refer to private emails or Trust business where I can. I’ve tried to answer as many as your points as possible without taking the issue onto individual names and circumstances. I’ll save that and my own questions for the right time and place even if that means a couple of your questions can’t be answered here. I’m sure the readers of the thread understand that.

1. Strange that MD would put his thoughts on his own website - haven't you done that?”

Yes, I released our statement on my website and elsewhere to maximise it’s coverage before the meeting. This was in the absence of a suitable alternative – as explained in depth earlier. In addition, I’m not a current RST Board member, so I don’t think the same restrictions apply in terms of where and when I should be releasing my own personal thoughts of situations. Nevertheless I’ve tried to maintain member privacy at all times.

I won’t ask if you agree that private RST board matters should not be debated on websites without the members’ permission. You obviously don’t.

2. It wasn't debated properly as none of you turned up.

For genuine reasons explained earlier. Perhaps we can debate some of the obvious issues you have at the AGM in September? Or do you feel this is a more suitable forum?

3. So your resignations and posting your statement on a public forum did further the cause of the Rangers support then. News of the resignations and the statement was on every Timmy website, making the RST a laughng stock.

Our statement – in the absence of an alternative and in the absence of accurate information released by Trust despite repeated requests – was made in order for the members to read our reasons for resigning. I don’t read ‘Timmy’ websites and care even less what they think.

Further, please don’t suggest you care about what other supporters think when you are so keen to further this debate and conduct private RST member business on open forums. It certainly appears you don’t care if the RST are a laughing stock or not by continuing this debate.

4. If you mean things like 'I met with Matin Bain and Jim Templeton last night and everything is fine, the Club will announce the Directorship in January, no wait March, no wait they will put an offer in writing then we can debate it' type of e-mails then yes these were received. However I refer you to SM's e-mail of 21st April entitled 'Can we bring the next meeting foward - Important information'. I won't go into detail but it suggested that all was not well and the scheduled meeting was brought forward to 6th May.

Sorry, that’s not the content of the emails I remember. They went into much more detail than that and there was also full debate at the Trust board meetings so, unlike MD suggests, all board members were being briefed. Maybe you missed them and thus the debates? If you were present why didn’t you raise the obvious problems you had?

Also,there were various delays in the information coming from the club from March onwards. That’s why MM/SM were about to address the issue at the meeting they requested. Unfortunately said meeting was asked to be postponed – for wholly genuine reasons you do agree?

I note again that you ignore the fact that MM/SM met with JG to give a full update on matters regarding the club which shows they had nothing to hide whatsoever with what they were working towards on our behalves.

I also note you ignore my relevant point about other board members attending external meetings and not reporting back fully.

5. 6 alternative days the following week? Do you mean the week in which we were playing our first European final in 36 years?

Awful coincidental timing wasn’t it? But hardly MM or SM’s fault. I’m sure we could have delayed to the following week if people couldn’t make it because of Manchester. The point is MM and SM were prepared to discuss the issue at the most convenient time for all. Are you denying that?

6. He said he felt that he didn't have the backing and support of the Board - the very Board that voted him unanimously as our candidate fot the RFC Director's position. Whether or not that was how he felt, it wasn't true.

IIRC, the board voted him as the candidate almost a year ago. A lot can change in a year. There were other reasons for his resignation as well which had happened over the course of that year. I’d suggest the formation of committees to monitor his actions and your own obvious unfounded unhappiness and distrust of his intentions suggests he didn’t have the backing of sections of the board.

7. Minutes of meeting don't always accurately reflect every single thing that was said. Terms of reference may have been discussed but nothing was decided. As you weren't present at the meeting you can't possibly know everything that was said. Can you also confirm that this item was on the agenda prior to MM trying the cancel the meeting and yourself and others pulling out the meeting? Your allegations of a 'coup' are somewhat misleading given it was already on the agenda when it was thought that everyone was attending.

I can only go on the official minutes and what others present at the meeting (resigned and non-resigned board members) have told our group. I’ve no idea if the item was on the agenda prior to MM cancelling the meeting. I (and the rest of the board list) received the agenda from the secretary at 16.24 and that was after I, MM, SM and CR had pulled out.

8. Really? I'd hate to see what you would do if you were trying to 'trash' the Trust and besmirch other Board members. Maybe you should have named names, then the rest of us would not be under a cloud of suspicion. Your right, it gave your side, none of which has been proved.

Are you suggesting we didn’t have the right to make public our grievances just because it may have not painted the RST in a great light? As for not proving anything, well I think I’ve posted a fair amount which certainly backs up our point of view. I have refrained from more in-depth stuff as I still believe that’s more suited for elsewhere. Personal accusations on public forums do no one any favours – least of all the organisation as it is now. I’m surprised you disagree with that.

9. Are you denying that two 'business' people were being groomed for Board positions? Are you denying that these two people did some work for nothing and only just joined the Trust to get on the Board? Are you aware that the Trust now has a hefty invoice to pay because these two were pals of those who resigned? Are you denying that comments were being made about others 'uselessness' behing their backs in an attempt to get them off the Board?

Excuse me!? We were ‘grooming’ two business people for board positions? What on earth does that ludicrous question mean? If you mean that the whole board were made aware of two very useful Rangers fans who had been interested in the Trust (despite not being members in previous years) and had helped us with the rebranding exercise (again approved at a board meeting) perhaps being interested in board positions to help improve operations due to their suitable business backgrounds, then yes that was the case. Of course if they wanted to join the board they’d have had to stand for election like the other people applying.

I have no idea if an invoice is to be paid or not. I’m not aware of current private RST business (other than the stuff you’re making public without the members’ permission now) although I certainly doubt these invoices would be related to the resignations. I’m sure they would have needed to be paid no matter who remained on the board. They were for external services after all. I can’t remember them ever being promised for free as you allege. There’s certainly nothing in the minutes of the time to say that was the case.

By the same token would you deny approaches were made to people other board members knew for their election last weekend and in previous years? I’d say that is always going to happen to ensure the highest possible quality of board member is voted on given the usual dearth of board applications each year. Did current board members approach you to join the board? Who proposed and seconded you or were you co-opted for your business skills?

What comments are you referring to about ‘uselessness’? I’ve seen or heard no such comments.

10. More than obvious to whom? That is what's called democracy. We debated and voted. We could only do that with the people in attendance. If you look at the mintes there was a unanimous vote to ask MM and SM for a written report on what was happening re the Director's position and stadium redevelopment. 11-0 is pretty convincing I would suggest. The Special Tasks Committee vote was 9-2 (not 8-2 as given in your statement and if you can't get that right what else was wrong in it?) So what was 'well wide of the mark'?

People do get stuff wrong on occasion. After all the minutes are wrong in part anyway and it appears remaining board members have imparted false information about recent issues. As for the Directorship issue, of course there was a unanimous vote for the board to receive a full report. I rather doubt people would vote not to receive such a necessary report. MM/SM were more than aware a full report was required – hence them calling the meeting in the first place. They also gave the report at their earliest convenience to JG.

As such, the claim that any faction was winning votes unanimously (other than the pointless vote above) was well wide of the mark. 7 people resigned and others have since said they were unhappy with the committee proposal in retrospect – as well as the 2 who did vote against it at the time. Not quite so clear-cut as some make out.

11. So how were your characters being denigrated prior to the resignations if this was one of the reasons? Examples please.

Perhaps I worded my earlier sentence badly but I think you’ll find, as stated in the original post, that the denigration issue was after the resignations. I think your posts in this thread are supplying ample examples of that. There were others: such as the accusation that MM/SM had failed in their work; that the resignees didn’t believe in the Trust movement; while efforts regarding fundraising (at record levels in recent years) were also disrespected.

12. In the absence of any proof, I'll give you that. To an outsider though it may have looked 'suspicious'

In the absence of any proof? Are you denying the resignation hand-overs were anything less than professional? There’s nothing suspicious and I don’t see any ‘outsiders’ suggesting so.

13. How arrogant are you? Where have any of my posts been inaccurate? Do you really expect people to read lies about themselves and ignore it? As stated before you didn't even come to the SGM to argue your case. I've asked you for proof of this 'faction', 'more militant approach', 'negative political briefings' and 'disagreements on strategy' and you can't give any proof whatsoever.

Ah more petty name-calling. I’m not being arrogant whatsoever, only commenting on the issues as well as I can.

Again, my sentence structure may not have been perfect, but when I said ‘inaccurate’ I had referred to the ‘people’ (plural) who had made such posts. There have been several inaccuracies – JG claiming he had proposed committees; MD and you suggesting board members weren’t aware of all issues; MD and you suggesting a ‘purge’ of board members was imminent etc.

As for proof of factions, I think we’re both more than aware of what was going on. I’m genuinely surprised you’re denying it. The split in the RST board was talked about on many an occasion. Did you receive the abusive text message sent by a remaining board member? Or did he only send it to selected people?

Regarding this ‘more militant approach’, I have official correspondence from a senior RST office-holder saying the Trust will be ‘more militant’. I also think 7 people resigning over a committee (and other such reasons) are also disagreements on strategy.

13. If the members are not happy they can bring it up via our usual channels. I would issue contents of e-mails if it was my only method of proving what I was saying was correct.

No, I think you should have contacted the membership before embarking on a public loss of discipline by releasing private organisational matters via non-RST channels. To do stuff first and then just say it’s up to them to complain afterwards is hardly a great argument.

But you are right in one way. By acting against the constitution and continuing this needless debate (despite myself and other remaining board members supposedly urging everyone to move on), you are continuing to make the RST a laughing stock.

Now, once more, I urge you to move on, accept my replies in the good faith they are offered and allow the debate to take place in a more suitable forum.

[Frankie 505]

Frankie, can I ask if you know who Cooperonthewing and Babyblueger are? It seems a bit unfair if you are debating with anonymous figures.

No, I don't know who they are.

I am also surprised the board member in question doesn't wish to make themselves known considering the allegations they are making on their colleagues behalf.

I think it should be noted that I've always posted openly on all forums under the name of 'Frankie'. I don't have different names for different forums (despite posting on 5 different forums) and I've never hidden that I was a board member or that I could have been contacted at any time to discuss Trust matters.

[Canadaready 9,437]

on a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

[Jimenez 1]

In a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

You been a naughty boy? :harhar:

[*Manticore* 1,893]

In a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

You been a naughty boy? :harhar:

He's been at the necrophilia again, you know what they're like over there.

[cooperonthewing 0]

You know what Frankie, people can make up their own minds based on what we have both said. I asked for evidence of your allegations and, IMHO, you have failed to produce it. It will become apparent in the coming months when there is no change of strategy and no militant approach that perhaps this was imagined rather than reality.

[Jimenez 1]

In a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

You been a naughty boy? :harhar:

He's been at the necrophilia again, you know what they're like over there.

Sounds like my kinda gig.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

In a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

You been a naughty boy? :harhar:

He's been at the necrophilia again, you know what they're like over there.

Sounds like my kinda gig.

That's not what folk mean they say 'You're fucking dead'.

[Jimenez 1]

In a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

You been a naughty boy? :harhar:

He's been at the necrophilia again, you know what they're like over there.

Sounds like my kinda gig.

That's not what folk mean they say 'You're fucking dead'.

They put up less of a fight

[Guest therabbitt]

You know what Frankie, people can make up their own minds based on what we have both said. I asked for evidence of your allegations and, IMHO, you have failed to produce it. It will become apparent in the coming months when there is no change of strategy and no militant approach that perhaps this was imagined rather than reality.

Pretty sure Frankie answered all of your questions COTW the way I read it - unless Im mistaken.

If anything Frankie has stated that he would continue to debate further some of the more sensitive issues in a less public manner.

Either way - from an independent outsider, this has been a fantastic read and an insight into the goings on of the RST.

It seems that COTWs retorts have been less thought out than Frankies and seem more reactionary than expanatory, however in saying that I can see that he is clearly angered by the situation.

I do agree that further discussions may be served better in a less public manner so a line can be properly drawn in the sand between you both as I fear a proper resolution cannot be reached with you both dancing around sensitive information

Just my $0.02

[cooperonthewing 0]

You know what Frankie, people can make up their own minds based on what we have both said. I asked for evidence of your allegations and, IMHO, you have failed to produce it. It will become apparent in the coming months when there is no change of strategy and no militant approach that perhaps this was imagined rather than reality.

Pretty sure Frankie answered all of your questions COTW the way I read it - unless Im mistaken.

If anything Frankie has stated that he would continue to debate further some of the more sensitive issues in a less public manner.

Either way - from an independent outsider, this has been a fantastic read and an insight into the goings on of the RST.

It seems that COTWs retorts have been less thought out than Frankies and seem more reactionary than expanatory, however in saying that I can see that he is clearly angered by the situation.

I do agree that further discussions may be served better in a less public manner so a line can be properly drawn in the sand between you both as I fear a proper resolution cannot be reached with you both dancing around sensitive information

Just my $0.02

Without dragging this out further (although I know I am ) I posted 7 questions the other day directly related to the statement - after I was asked to address the issues in it. These have not been answered.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

You know what Frankie, people can make up their own minds based on what we have both said. I asked for evidence of your allegations and, IMHO, you have failed to produce it. It will become apparent in the coming months when there is no change of strategy and no militant approach that perhaps this was imagined rather than reality.

Pretty sure Frankie answered all of your questions COTW the way I read it - unless Im mistaken.

If anything Frankie has stated that he would continue to debate further some of the more sensitive issues in a less public manner.

Either way - from an independent outsider, this has been a fantastic read and an insight into the goings on of the RST.

It seems that COTWs retorts have been less thought out than Frankies and seem more reactionary than expanatory, however in saying that I can see that he is clearly angered by the situation.

I do agree that further discussions may be served better in a less public manner so a line can be properly drawn in the sand between you both as I fear a proper resolution cannot be reached with you both dancing around sensitive information

Just my $0.02

Without dragging this out further (although I know I am ) I posted 7 questions the other day directly related to the statement - after I was asked to address the issues in it. These have not been answered.

I personally thought Frankie had answered your questions, they may be lost within the continuous long thread and responses that have been posted so far.

It could be that you haven't read the answers you want to read and therefore feel that they haven't been answered?

[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.

These are the questons I mean.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

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.

These are the questons I mean.

I'm convinced Frankie did answer some of these questions but as he had attempted to say at other times an open forum is not always an appropriate place to discuss certain issues, but as had been said by other members on here, even though it has been an interesting debate to read the length of some posts has made it confusing at times.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

For what it's worth I'm not intentially trying to defend either side, I'm a member of the RST and it was Frankie through this forum who recruited me. I'll continue to be a member of the RST until such a time comes where I don't feel the politics, or the possible direction the RST might take makes me feel uncomfortable with being part of the organisation.

Should that ever happen then I'll leave the RST.

[ScotBear 144]

The statement from the seven rightly or wrongly at least came from the seven of them. The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from Mark Dingwall. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board.

Very good point

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board.

What else is there to believe?

No other board member tried to contradict any of it, offered no challenge to it's content and (more importantly) appeared to have precisely nothing to say about RST business suddenly being conducted by and within FF.

[Jimenez 1]

The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board.

What else is there to believe?

No other board member tried to contradict any of it, offered no challenge to it's content and (more importantly) appeared to have precisely nothing to say about RST business suddenly being conducted by and within FF.

Isn't cotw contradicting the statement on here?

What do you expect of these people?

They have their own lives to run while also conducting their Trust duties without getting drawn in to a neverending game of verbal tennis.

[Crabman 0]

The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board.

What else is there to believe?

No other board member tried to contradict any of it, offered no challenge to it's content and (more importantly) appeared to have precisely nothing to say about RST business suddenly being conducted by and within FF.

Isn't cotw contradicting the statement on here?

What do you expect of these people?

They have their own lives to run while also conducting their Trust duties without getting drawn in to a neverending game of verbal tennis.

100% correct.

COTW is doing well enough and others have no desire to join in.

To quote Churchill

"If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future"

One from Gandhi for the post that questioned why seven signed one statement and only MD the other.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."

Finally frankie something to ponder, I will not make it a question.

MM was supposedly busy the night of "the meeting" you could not attend. Makes you wonder how he managed to hear SS on Real Radio discussing the forthecoming trip to Manchester. SS had to leave the meeting temporarily to do it and MM text him later to say he heard it.

Now I will not indulge this verbal tennis again as Jiminez has correctly called it and get on with more important things in my life.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board.

What else is there to believe?

No other board member tried to contradict any of it, offered no challenge to it's content and (more importantly) appeared to have precisely nothing to say about RST business suddenly being conducted by and within FF.

Isn't cotw contradicting the statement on here?

What do you expect of these people?

They have their own lives to run while also conducting their Trust duties without getting drawn in to a neverending game of verbal tennis.

And who's COTW - an RST board member? How am I supposed to know. What would I expect of a board asking to represent Rangers supporters? Firstly, I'd expect them to conduct their business, with clear statements regarding policy and progress on the RST official site. And in an honourable and professional way. Certainly not on FF and not on threads on RM. It's reasonable to expect at least that.

And why do you always feel the need to defend the current board no matter how badly the RST affairs are conducted? Not that I'm madly crazy about the before or after at this time - there's been an all too public hanging out of the dirty washing on this very thread.

As my grand-faither used to say: "Don't shite on your own doorstep, son. You're bound to step on it."

[Boab 73]

COTW is/was 'Cooper on the wing' who was questioning Frankie quite the thing earlier on in the thread.

Btw, is your private messenge disabled at all?

[Jimenez 1]

And who's COTW - an RST board member? How am I supposed to know. What would I expect of a board asking to represent Rangers supporters? Firstly, I'd expect them to conduct their business, with clear statements regarding policy and progress on the RST official site. And in an honourable and professional way. Certainly not on FF and not on threads on RM. It's reasonable to expect at least that.

And why do you always feel the need to defend the current board no matter how badly the RST affairs are conducted? Not that I'm madly crazy about the before or after at this time - there's been an all too public hanging out of the dirty washing on this very thread.

As my grand-faither used to say: "Don't shite on your own doorstep, son. You're bound to step on it."

I think it's obvious that he's a remaining board member. He has already stated that they haven't done enough in the past regarding communication! and that's something they are hoping to resolve. Is it perhaps ironic that you are criticizing the lack of feedback on this issue from their site when the ex-web master happens to be Frankie? Surely we should let whoever has taking his place time to address the issues?

Why ? 'cause unlike others I'm prepared to give the current board time to get everything back on track.

Touche

[JR 1,480]

The only reply I have seen did not come from the new board but from MD. This is surely a mistake also and leads people to believe he is speaking for the board.

What else is there to believe?

No other board member tried to contradict any of it, offered no challenge to it's content and (more importantly) appeared to have precisely nothing to say about RST business suddenly being conducted by and within FF.

Isn't cotw contradicting the statement on here?

What do you expect of these people?

They have their own lives to run while also conducting their Trust duties without getting drawn in to a neverending game of verbal tennis.

100% correct.

COTW is doing well enough and others have no desire to join in.

To quote Churchill

"If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future"

One from Gandhi for the post that questioned why seven signed one statement and only MD the other.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."

Finally frankie something to ponder, I will not make it a question.

MM was supposedly busy the night of "the meeting" you could not attend. Makes you wonder how he managed to hear SS on Real Radio discussing the forthecoming trip to Manchester. SS had to leave the meeting temporarily to do it and MM text him later to say he heard it.

Now I will not indulge this verbal tennis again as Jiminez has correctly called it and get on with more important things in my life.

Could he perhaps have had the radio on while he was busy? I'm probably one of the busiest people I know...still got the tunes on

[Canadaready 9,437]

In a cell and thought this was a good read. Its nice to see that freedom of speech is working well.

You been a naughty boy? :harhar:

He's been at the necrophilia again, you know what they're like over there.

Sounds like my kinda gig.

Shoulda said 'mobile phone'

Anyway, Canada rocks. I read all of these 14 pages. Quite something.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Why ? 'cause unlike others I'm prepared to give the current board time to get everything back on track. Touche

That's a fair point, Jiminez. It would obviously have been better for all if some kind of agreement could have been reached to have avoided the very public slanging matches. But, it's done now and so we'll see how things progress.