boss

You speak much sense.

If it has any relevance to the discussion (and it probably hasn't ) I wouldn't have signed the Accounts.

Yes, but I won't be commenting on them here. Suffice to say that I have the utmost respect for what he has achieved in his professional life. He is used to dealing at a level some magnitude above the present case in point. There are both positives and negatives when you try to transfer knowledge and skills from one level to another.

HHB seems to have gone after the pros joined in. He's left a trail of inconsistencies and unanswered questions. (Only joking HHB :box: )

How do you know who was in the audience? Is Bluedell "a punter with no accounting background"? He was one of those in attendance. If he had the opportunity to listen to Mr Harris's statement, how do you know that Bluedell wouldn't have asked some pertinent questions?

The logical extension of what you say is that all Accounts presented to any AGM should be nodded through by members if the auditors are present. Which is just daft.

Of course it could. It is for the members at the AGM to approve the Accounts or otherwise, irrespective of whether an auditor is present.

You omit to comment on the point that the chair of the meeting knew his statement was relevant to the discussion and approval of the accounts, and still blocked him from speaking at that time.

Their statement completely mixes up "Auditors report" with "Management letter". They mean the latter but they say the former; they can't even get their statement right all these days later. I wonder whether, in writing this statement, they received the same quality of legal advice to which their statement refers. Also, their own statement damns the accounts - "Mr. Dingwall was unable to sell the seats immediately and as the RST had organised the events, he was therefore deemed liable for the outstanding monies" - this should have been disclosed in the 2009 and 2010 accounts, end of. What on earth were the auditors thinking about, assuming they knew about the transactions in the first place?

As Bluedell has stated elsewhere, a statement relevant to the approval (or otherwise) of the Accounts was not allowed to be made at the time the Accounts were being discussed and approved. That is out of order. That fact that Mr Harris may or may not (depending on who you believe) have been told he could make the statement later is hardly relevant - the Accounts would have been approved by then.

As Frankie says, the RST seems to be paying for a credit card machine (usually about �£25 pm) then letting others use it for functions where the RST is not receiving the benefit. Apart from unethical, it is also completely against the agreement the RST has with the credit card company. But PLG doesn't seem to care about the legalities of breaking contractual agreements.

Tannochside is the epitome of reasonableness. Mr Reasonable from Reason Street, Both Sides Town, Reasonably Everywhere. If he can smell the stink ...

I disagree That is only one of the issues. Other issues include whether the acting chairman of the AGM was right to cover this up, whether the transactions should have been disclosed in the accounts, whether the Rules of the Trust have been breached, whether the auditors were complicit, whether SD rules have been breached, whether the board have lost the moral authority to lead etc... None of these answers necessarily flows from the legal advice.

It is frightening to think that the RST board tried to cover this up. Shame on those board directors who tried to keep the facts from the members - in it for yourselves and to see how many books and t-shirts you can sell.

Very interesting, and brave OP. Sometimes being the whistleblower is a very lonely place... There are many issues here, the legal position being only one. It is apparent from the evidence so far available that these transactions were disclosable in the RST accounts. The OP was correct in not signing them off. I hope the auditors are prepared if complaints are made to the FSA and ICAS...

How do you know the first bit? It's a question I've raised but there's been no official answer. If you are correct, that represents over 35% of the profit made from functions that year. That is material and disclosable. End of.

:spl:

It was, though, a guarantee - MD publicly stated it was.

I can't quite believe you just posted that, given the events of the last hour. Really, I can't. Pause ... and breathe ... did you really just say: I express an opinion and because it is not the same as others, I am at it.

You don't really want to understand the concept of 'notional interest', do you? If you did, you wouldn't still be sticking up for the Cheque Bouncer.

No, that is not that just because you say so. Why are you refusing to acknowledge the financial gain made from the notional interest on the zero percent debt outstanding to the Bank of RST?

Seems an incredible admission. He owed the Trust money for 2 years, from functions in 2008. �£30 was outstanding at 5/4/10 and no-one has yet admitted how much was outstanding at 5/4/09. Did he really have to wait until August this year to be told he still owed money? Normal people know when they owe money. A financial gain was made (the notional interest on the debt outstanding) - it doesn't matter how many friendly solicitors try to state otherwise. I note that none of this was disclosed in the Accounts for 2009 or for 2010. A board member owed a debt at the year end ("I have now repaid the debt") and it wasn't disclosed... Why was the Treasurer not demanding this money was paid throughout that time? No wonder the finances are in a mess. �£10k loss = sleeping on the job. I wonder whether this is related to the "bounced cheque" allegations that have been made elsewhere. Is it not illegal to write a cheque when, at the time you write it, you are aware there are insufficient funds in the bank? IIRC it is not a defence that there was some pious hope there would be funds by the time the cheque was cashed. The RST bank account shouldn't be an overdraft that can be used for free credit for 2 years. Duckponds, schmuckponds ... nothing to see here.

Yes, someone had to put a rocket up Bain's backside to get him to do the job he is very well paid to do. This last year, Bain has been fighting for his career, and Rangers are beginning to reap the benefits. Muir has indeed been a breath of professional fresh air in a previously underperforming boardroom. Some of the doomsayers have even opened their eyes and agree. :cheers:

Don't introduce logic and facts into the discussion. That'll only confuse things.

I'm fairly sure some genius once said: Sure, some websites may not make themselves attractive for constructive debate giving such reps convenient excuses not to take part, so the critics themselves are not free of blame. But when one suggests they can represent and lead, such challenges should be overcome when looking at the bigger picture.