Bluedell

Not seen anything to worry me. I believe we've still to see the best of him and he'll be a real asset.

So you are trying to say that if a staff member of one of your clients highlighted an issue that had been excluded from an initial draft of a management letter prepared by yourselves, that you would identify that staff member as having no credibility or integrity? I've done the same in the past in my company. There are times when I ask for things to be removed and there are times when I ask for things to be added. It's then up to the auditors to word it in a way that they see as being appopriate. Standard business practice.

He said that he wanted to make a statement as to why he resigned as Secretary. Given that the Board had gone to the trouble of getting legal advice and getting the auditor to the meeting, it was surely clear that the statement involved the accounts. I have 2 questions: 1. Are you trying to say that it was not known that his statement would involve the accounts? 2. Would the chairman have allowed the accounts to be discussed later in the meeting after they had been previously approved?

No he didn't. He wanted to make a comment in respect of the accounts and was denied that opportunity.

Corrected that for you.

I've already privately pointed out to the RST auditor why the accounts were wrong...and it was nothing to do with any of the issues under debate.

Yeah, I think he's got bags of potential. Hopefully getting a regular game this season will really bring him on.

Possibly. I get a far better view of the game from my seat than most.

That's the way I see it. She is the obvious choice for the post.

Yeah, I thought Walter would be looking to bring him off half way through the second half. I guess things can look different when you're watching it on TV and when you're at the game.

I thought he was our poorest player last night. Did very little for a large part of the second half, although improved during the last 15 minutes.

Yeah, in great voice, particularly TBO. Welcome to the site, mate.

I don't see that there were 49,000. There were gaps at the back of the broomloan and in the main stand. Couldn't see the club deck but I'd guess that there were gaps there too. Probably somewhere inbetween.

I was there on time, waiting for everyone else to turn up. Perhaps you missed me?

Eclectica Asset Management look quite small. Only �£300m of funds under management. That's tiny in the overall scheme of things although I guess they are very specialised.

I'm still waiting for you to turn up at last year's.

He did fail to state that it was connected and should have followed up the point, and I don't know why he didn't, but notwithstanding that, it was known that it was connected. Even if it occurred during the previous accounting period, it is still relevant to the current set of accounts as the previous accounting period's figures and disclosures still appear. Given that there has been a failure by all parties to state dates accurately and/or definitively, it also seems to me that it's still open to debate as what accounting period(s) are affected.

I didn't hear the bit in bold but otherwise it was as you have said. I still fail to see why he was prevented from raising it at this point though.

The statement is disappointing. It does not clarify any dates. Will the RST board please clarify the exact date of the dinner and the dates that the amounts were repaid? It also does not address the concern that this issue was prevented from being discussed at the relevant time of the AGM. I am still unclear about whether this is an issue that required disclosure in the accounts.

Are you trying to blame the former secretary for the chairman refusing him the opportunity to speak at the AGM? Given that the board had taken legal advice and had got the auditor along to the AGM then it seems disingenuous to try and suggest that the Board and the Chairman did not know at least part of the content of his statement, and the fact that it was relevant to the accounts. I am still unclear as to the rights and wrongs of the situation but I am convinced that that it was totally wrong for the chairman to prevent this from being discussed by the members at the AGM at the time when the former secretary tried to raise it.

We are still waiting for the facts to be established. We were promised a statement 5 days ago, and we are still waiting for some clarity on the situation. Why would members be contacting you when we are all waiting for this statement? Edit - sorry I have now seen that a statement has been issued. It was not on the site when I checked late yesterday.

I'll reserve judgement on that until the full facts are clarified. As has been pointed out, there is a discrepancy in the former secretary's dates of when the sum was repaid which has been pointed out by the former treasurer, but the actual dates involved have not yet been clarified.

Auditors often issue draft letters in respect of issues arising from an audit. Many of the points raised can subsequently be dropped from final versions depending on the response from management and the severity or materiality of the issue. It would be helpful if the exact dates of amounts becoming due and the exact dates of repayments of said amounts were clarified to allow a proper assessment of the facts of the case. Hopefully the RST statement will clarify this, and will not resort to mudslinging. I also think that the members of the RST should be allowed access to the legal advice.

It seems clear that the statement involved the accounts and it seems clear that the acting chairman of the meeting knew that and still prevented him from making the statement. Putting to one side the accuracy or otherwise of Alan's statement, it is totally wrong for the board to prevent this issue being raised at the appropriate time and to be discussed by the members.

Corrected that for you.