boss

As an auditor in a previous life (thank goodness I stepped to the other side of the fence before I lost my sanity... some would say I lost it anyway).... I would not have signed the accounts unless, at the very least, a related party transaction note was included in the footnotes. AT THE VERY LEAST.

You speak much sense.

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

Do you know HHB's background?

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.

I know I shouldn't laff, but this is turning into something of a spectator sport, had a look on RM, hillheadbear is handing out a singular and severe lesson to the lightweights taking him on, laff I couldn't stop...... what a fekin david essex... :fish:

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 is a punter supposed to decide how to vote without the independant auditor? if the independant auditor has 'passed' the accounts, along with all bar one member of the board, how is a punter with no accounting background supposed to ever vote against the passing of the accounts? You have 17 board members and an independant body say 'yes' and one lone man saying 'no'.

 

bringing it up as AOB would have allowed Mr. Harris a platform to lodge his displeasure IMO.

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?

Would the fact that Mr. Harris complaints would have been answered by both the auditor and the independant legal advice not have seen his statement almost redundant? Would the 35 people present have voted to not pass the accounts in the face of 2 independant sources saying that it was all fine? Cant see it.

 

The fact that both the auditors and the independant legal advice passed the accounts means that the accounts were de facto 'passable' and nothing Mr. Harris could say would be material to that decision. His concerns are more on the prudency of practices and his decision to step down was based on a lack of procedural formality and personal grievance rather than legalise. that would put it firmly into the 'AOB' sphere.

 

in my most humble opinion, of course.

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.

If the accounts had been audited and passed by the auditor, and the auditor was present, could Mr. harris' statement have had any material effect on the passing of those accounts at the AGM?

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.

cheers for reply. I have asked around and have spoken later on in the afternoon to someone who was at the meeting and it seems Mr Harris never actually mentioned anything about accounts at the AGM, he stood up and said, do you want to hear why I resigned or something along those lines and was actually rather sheepish. I'm also told that there was no storming out by Mr Harris and the reply he got from the chair was not prohibitive to him speaking later in the meeting. I dare say if he'd said "I wish to draw the members attention to items contained within accounts" rather than " I want to tell you why I resigned"? Who knows

 

Maybe Bluedell can confirm if that is the case? I do not know for sure.

 

And before I start getting pilloried, I'm actually neutral on this whole subject and would rather facts and truths and logics applied rather than a witch hunt either way.

 

The hysteria on FF, here and RM is a bit over the top and fuelled by agenda from some it would seem.

 

That's just from a new poster's perspective but that is the way it seems.

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?

I wasn't at AGM nor am I a member however I have learned elsewhere that Mr Harris was asked to hang on until after a certain part of the proceedings and chose to leave.

 

I'll try to confirm this as I know one person that was there but not seen them in a while.

 

I've not really criticised anyone by the way. Just think that this has gone beyond whistle blowing. Just my opinion or is that not welcome?

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.

Whilst I disagree with most of that Alan, I'm not prepared to get into a spat with you on an internet forum. What I would like to clarify for people is your reference to the Student Loan Company as I've seen that on another site people putting two and two together and coming out with 356. If you didn't understand at the time why didn't you say so as I clearly remember explaining it to you. Simply, an ex-Board member worked for this company and was responsible for running a charity fundraiser. He simply borrowed our credit card machine for the evening to enable credit cards to be taken at their auction. We took in the money on their behalf and when the statement came in we gave them the money back, less the transaction charges that were incurred. Nobody lost, nobody gained but suddenly people are implying that we are paying off student loans.

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 ...

Certainly the legal opinion obtained by the Trust is key to this whole issue.

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...

The amount of the debt outstanding at 5 April 2009 was �£2690. The amount of the debt outstanding at 5 April 2010 was �£30.

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.

I'm wondering how you've time to appear on various web sites when there's all this traveling, cooking and so on to be done?

:spl:

this was not a loan, interest free or otherwise

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

I express an opinion and because it is not the same as others, I am at it.

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.

not at all. That means that the trust 'lost' the interest. He didnt gain the interest because he didnt take cash out, just underwrote debt. ergo, he didnt gain. If he had borrowed money off them and paid it back slowly, he would have gained. He didnt take anything but guaranteed to pay money in on behalf of others.

 

If you said the trust lost you would be right. saying he 'gained' is plainly wrong.

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.

Yes, the financial irrgularites are agreed as just that, the matter has been resolved, MD did not in any way benefit personally and that is that.

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?

I doubt he will mind this being posted as it ws said in open forum over there....

 

At the risk of being called a lickspittle, that sounds reasonable enough and if he has simply underwritten RST 'debts' and paid them over time, there is some irregularity but not for personal gain (the opposite, if anything).

 

I dont know his or the trusts financial information and I agree that it is probably highly irregular, but from the above it doesnt look like he took anything at all out of the coffers and seemingly paid money in instead.

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.

Yeah, apparently Lloyds are very happy with their man.

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:

But you did start such a 'campaign' in January last year.

 

Did that alienate more people than it did attract members?

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

maineflyer.

 

I can't be arsed with you when you're in this kind if mood. I bet you could light up a room just by walking out of it.

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.