boss

Hey, we get enough of your battles with Boss on RM. Don't bring them on here.

 

:D

I'll rise above him, don't worry.

Interesting to see that he stalks me here, he stalks me there, he gunstalkers me everywhere...

"tea bhoys", surely?

Here's the original BBC article that someone copied onto RM. Not their best ever effort...

Rangers have terminated the contract of finance director Donald MacIntyre as new owner Craig Whyte continues to overhaul the Ibrox boardroom.

MacIntyre had been suspended along with the chief executive Martin Bain earlier this week pending the outcome of an internal inquiry.

Philip Betts' position as a new director has been confirmed, while Gary Withey becomes company secretary.

Former Rangers chairman John McClelland is to remain on the board.

After the departure on Tuesday of chairman Alastair Johnston and director Paul Murray there were suggestions that McClelland would also leave.

However, a Rangers spokesman confirmed to BBC Scotland that McClelland had been asked to stay on and had been delighted to accept the offer.

McClelland has been a board member at Ibrox since 2000 and was chairman between 2002 and 2004.

Former Rangers captain and manager John Greig is also staying in the boardroom.

The spokesman also confirmed that Whyte will meet with manager Ally McCoist in the next few days to discuss his spending requirements for next season

So, did the beeb report earlier that he'd been sacked then change their story to the one I posted above boss?

Yes, they reported that he had been sacked as a director and have since changed their story - I heard it myself on BBC Radio Scotland driving home from work!

So Bluedell (who I've taught everything he knows ) will just have to haud his horses for a wee while yet...

BBC have jumped the gun with this. Donald McIntyre HAS NOT been sacked as a director. The form lodged at Companies House is a TM02 - termination of company secretary.

Donald McIntyre is still a director and is still suspended pending investigation, as is Martin Bain.

BBC incompetence strikes again.

Was once the case big style. And even now I gather that the majority staff team does one thing, then others come on and overturn that decision. Great team.

As Frankie said above, I must also have missed all that. IMO RM has a great team that work hard to improve the site and there's no in-fighting within the team. I can't speak for the site or the Admin/Mods, but it would surprise me if substantially all of them were not keen for the supporters to work more closely together.

I'm actually astonished a 'bigger' club haven't picked him up by now.

:surprised:

McGregor had at least 3 bits of pure genius last night - the cross/shot that he just managed to tip away, the reflex save after Wylde went to sleep, and the cross from the right that was going inside the far post until he got a glove to it.

Most goalies are nutters, the present OP excepted, and it helps when they are brilliant as well.

I agree completely with Rab's sentiments which are admirable. I would imagine that substantially all of RM's posters would be in favour of the supporters working together.

EDITED by Frankie - please see above.

No doubt. Very busy. I didn't sit down and do a detailed review of the number of home games included in turnover year on year.

 

What's your estimate?

Haven't done one, but unless we make a provision for the big tax case we will be in profit.

Good to see that Boss and I agree with our estimates of net debt.

I disagree with your estimate of �£2m loss for the year, though. Were you having a bad morning?

Frankie is a hero - he can walk on water.

Miss Patton is the PR director.

Not like you to be so badly informed and completely wrong.

http://www.rangersmedia.co.uk/homepage/index.php/component/content/article/41-finances/754-stewart-regan-was-asked-to-apply-for-his-sfa-job.html

It is becoming clearer by the day that something absolutely stinks about the appointment of Stewart Regan as chief executive of the SFA.

Diligent work by a number of forums, together with the few remaining investigative journalists, has already uncovered the unsavoury link between Kevin Reid (John�s son) and his best buddy Paul Nolan of Nolan Partners, who helped the SFA to recruit Regan.

As we know, Regan and Peter Lawwell worked together during their time at Coors. Also, Nolan Partners is a business supplier to Celtic. And unconfirmed rumour has it also that the SFA committee tasked with finding a new CE was headed by Eric Riley, Celtic director.

All very incestuous so far.

Now RangersMedia can reveal that Regan did not wake up one morning, see the SFA job advertised in Odious Creepââ?¬â?¢s Times of London, and think: ââ?¬Å?Iââ?¬â?¢ll have a bit of thatââ?¬Â. Oh no. Thatââ?¬â?¢s not quite what happened.

You see, Regan got a phone call. From who, we don�t yet know. But it would be nice if we were told. I think we should be told.

During that phone call, the caller suggested to Regan that applying for the SFA job might be a good idea. In fact the caller went further; the caller specifically asked him to apply.

Now who was that caller? In true Cluedo style, I lay out before you the principal suspects:

- John Reid in Dawn Primarolo�s boudoir with a half bottle of Cream of the Barley

- Eric Riley in the Turncoat Inn with four hundred committee memberships

- Peter Liewell in Japan with the ever increasing bank debt

- Paul Nolan in Number 7 Restaurant with a job well done

- Kevin Reid in a Parliamentary probe with access to Jack McConnell�s diary

Perhaps we could even add Regan himself to the list:

- Stewart Regan in Celtic�s back pocket with utter incompetence

We�ll never know just who made the phone call. But we do know that the stink is now pervasive.

.

Your first sentence wouldn't have ended with 'pal' .. boss...

You saying I've got no pals? :box:

You're probably right.

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.

I agree with Bluedell.

A management letter is something of a negotiation between client and auditor and can go through a number of drafts. I have had input at both ends, as auditor and as client. I have asked for things to be put in and I have asked for things to be taken out. Indeed, the client's "reply" to the management letter is also often agreed between client and auditor before the auditor issues the final management letter!

The poster "bossy" has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to management letters, so best to ignore what he has said. So "bossy", "any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window".

P.S. I hope no-one is mixing up "boss" with "bossy". :admin:

If I told you every CA I've worked with was fully seized of their code of ethics, I'd have to abandon truth in the process.

You and me too.

You mused a possibility, so let me muse it back to you again.......how would you know, I am always careful, it's a matter of degree...:box:

:confused:

Words don't appear to be your strong point.

Perhaps because he failed to indicate that it was connected. As far as we were concerned it was regarding breaches of rules that had occurred outwith the accounting period.

This is perhaps the most disingenuous (thanks Bluedell!) comment I've read from a board member for, oh, at least a few hours.

And how would you know they have conceded or have no answer, are you suggesting that he/she/they knowingly signed off accounts which were less than transparent and should have been qualified ???

I haven't said I know anything. You really need to be more careful with your language; I am surprised at you.

It hasn't been answered, it appears only the auditor can answer it, by official statement, if I was he or she, I would be far from happy about having my ability/integrity trashed on a messageboard, in fact I would take serious steps to have that development rectified, if that was indeed required.

Perhaps they've conceded that they have been asked questions to which they have no answer?

So how come all of a sudden everybody knows better than the auditor

Some of us do...

Who pays for the legal fees incurred?

 

The overall RST membership........or the Board members (member) who caused the situation in the first instance?

RST membership.

That is my take on the events as I've read them.

 

Self-confessed delayed payment.

 

"Tic" as my old granny called it.

Which then was only advised to certain board members, wasn't disclosed in the Accounts, caused the RST to incur legal fees, was overseen by a self-confessed incompetent Treasurer, and wasn't told to the members ... until Mr Harris blew the whistle.

But move on, there's nothing to see here.

Of course it has relevance....if that is a genuine professional opinion, again that raises the question as to why the accounts were put through unqualified, I may be simple but even I can see that both opinions can't be correct, or even meet in the middle....so my question is, should anyone have signed of these accounts as they were presented ?

The question you might have asked me is whether I would have refused to sign off the accounts as auditor as well as director.

And I would have refused to answer for professional reasons. But no doubt you could make a decent guess.