BrahimHemdani

I agree with you entirely. However until RST release that information, I can say from the contemporaneous notes that I have of the meeting with the auditors summarised in my OP above that Christine stated that the two cheques totalling �£2690 bounced some time between September and November 2008 and that �£2660 thereof was repaid between November 2009 and March 2010. I this is correct then it would be fair to say that all of the debt was outstanding for a year and some of the debt was outstanding for up to 18 months.

Yes. "Yes" was all I wanted to say but apparently you have to use at least 10 characters in a reply!

In my opinion this kind of personal attack is not only uncalled for but does the poster no credit. Christine is not and has never claimed to be an accountant or a lawyer or a financial expert. I believe that she did her best with the cards that she was dealt and suffered intolerable pressures in the process. As can be seen on this thread Christine and I disagree on a number of issues but we do not resort to personal attacks.

Neither do I wish to get into a public spat with you, Christine, and I won't. All I said was "we also had monies owing to the Student Loan Company" which is a fact as per the auditors analysis. I don't recollect the explanation but if you say you told me then I won't argue nor will I argue with the explanation itself. However, I am sure you will agree that you were unhappy with the use and lack of use of our credit card machine. I have read comment about this on another site but I am not qualified to give an opinion. I would also point out that I put this in the general context of "the Trust received and paid income on behalf of other third parties".

Thank you for acknowledging that Chrisitine. As a Director of SD both nationally and locally naturally I have kept them informed of my own position at RST; and since RST are one of the major if not the major Trust in Scotland they have a keen interest in its affairs.

1. I don't know, but from reading the comments on here I'd say it was people who were at the AGM. As you know I don't normally look at these web sites. I only registered here on Tuesday. 2. I was told I could ask questions at that point; I was not told I could make a statement later. 3. Thanks for pointing out this error for which I apologise. I have edited the original document. However if you look back to my very first post on here on Saturday night, you will see that I said that �£2690 was outstanding at 5 April 2009 and �£30 at 5 April 2010. So it remains true that the debt was incurred in Sep-Nov 2008, none was repaid by 5 April 2009 and followfollow.com had a free loan of Trust monies for the best part of 18 months. 4. No I didn't.

Another Board member told me that the lawyers were recommended by the auditors but I cannot confirm that. Also I do not know what information the lawyers were given nor the precise questions they were asked.

I can't answer the first point but you may feel free to circulate it wherever you chose. Unfortunately I was not able to attend the last properly constituted RST Board meeting on 26 August 2010 and the customary post AGM meeting to appoint new officers did not take place. However, according to the RST web site all three office bearers concerned remain in post at this time. The Chair, Stephen Smith stated at the AGM that he would not chair another AGM; beyond that, I do not know his intentions. However, I believe you know him well enough to ask him! It is my understanding that Alison is going to replace Chrisitine as Treasurer but I do not know when. Alan

I have slightly abridged my AGM statement [where indicated] below for the sake of brevity since some of the matters are covered in greater detail on the other thread I have just posted about the financial affairs of RST. RANGERS SUPPORTERS TRUST AGM 19 SEPTEMBER 2010 STATEMENT BY ALAN S HARRIS As Secretary of the Trust at the Financial Year end and at the time of the audit it was my responsibility to sign the accounts on behalf of the Board. I am an Independent Financial Adviser by profession and both I and my business are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). I am also a Director of Supporters Direct (SD) which is the umbrella organisation for Supporters Trusts. The auditors of RST drew attention to a debt of �£2,690 arising from bounced cheques issued by followfollow.com. This means that the Trustâ��s money, your money from your contributions and events, effectively was lent to followfollow.com. That loan was outstanding in whole or in part during most of our last two financial years. This was known to the Chair, the Vice Chair and the Treasurer but the Board were never informed. The auditors pointed out that our Rules, which determine our objectives, do not allow for making loans to third parties and that as a result there were breaches of various Rules. The auditors stated furthermore that breaching these Rules could lead to action being taken by the FSA or our taxable status being challenged by the Revenue. In other words by making the loan we could become taxable on our income. In addition to followfollow.com, the Trust received and paid income on behalf of other third parties such as the Erskine Appeal, Sam English Committee and for some reason that I donâ��t understand we also had monies owing to the Student Loan Company. The auditors [abridged] (stated) there was no documented reconciliation to ensure that only income received was in fact repaid to third parties; [abridged] this could lead to wrong amounts being paid and expenses not being recouped from third parties; the possibility of inaccurate accounts; and an increased likelihood of errors or misappropriations. My professional standing and integrity are very important to me. Indeed it was as a result of my standing in the financial services community that earlier this year I was able to introduce the solicitors who were (said to be) acting for the richest man in Scotland who was considering underwriting our bid for the Club. I took the view that if I had signed the Accounts I would be putting my professional standing at risk by condoning the mismanagement and irregularities disclosed in the audit. Furthermore, I was not prepared to jeopardise my own business authorisation by being associated with breaches of Rules that the auditors said could result in action being taken by the FSA. Therefore I was not prepared to sign the Accounts and in the circumstances concluded that I should resign as Secretary which I did on 12 August. Some people have asked why I did not resign from the Board at the same time. Certainly that was my original intention. There were two reasons why I did not do so: 1. Several Board members urged me to remain on the Board arguing that they would then be well placed to ensure that the Board acted responsibly by implementing my financial management proposals and ensuring that others stood down; but more importantly, 2. I wanted to ensure that if necessary I was in a position to make these facts known to the members especially all of you have taken the time to be here today. Of course it is for you the members to decide the best way forward for the Trust. For my part I am glad to have had the opportunity to serve as Secretary of RST and I am proud of my contribution. During my time on the Board and six months as secretary I re-wrote the Rules of Gersave and wrote a set of Financial Management Proposals including requirements to have budgets and controls over income and expenditure. I made a significant contribution to the Acquisition Proposal for the Club that we drew up in March. Lastly I introduced an election procedure based on SD best practice. At all times I have acted in the best interests of the Trust and the wider trust movement which I now serve as Director of Supporters Direct. SD are aware of my resignation and the reasons for it and have indicated that they feel I have acted with propriety. Alan S Harris

I believe it is time that someone clarified exactly what has been going on with the financial affairs of Rangers Supporters Trust (RST). The Board of RST had an opportunity to make full disclosure of the matters that I will explain below in the Accounts or at the AGM last Sunday, 19 September 2010. They failed to take either of these opportunities. I was elected to the Board of RST at the 2009 AGM and appointed as Secretary on 13 February 2010. I resigned as Secretary on 12 August 2010. I remain a member of the Board. It is the Secretaryââ?¬â?¢s duty to sign the Accounts on behalf of the Board. I refused to sign the Accounts for the year ended 5 April 2010. I had prepared a statement to read at the AGM but the Acting Chair refused to let me read it out. I asked RST to publish that statement on Thursday of this past week but they refused because the final version of the auditorââ?¬â?¢s management letter differs from the one quoted in my statement. I have kept my own counsel on these matters since the AGM but now feel compelled to make these matters known because I consider it my duty as a Director: 1. To explain to the members what happened to their money. 2. To clarify and correct some ambiguous and inaccurate comments that the current Treasurer, Christine Somerville (plgsarmy) has made on this web site. 3. To explain why I resigned as Secretary. Other than Christine I do not know the identity of anyone on this site. The only reason that I am posting this statement on this site is that last Tuesday a friend drew my attention to the thread about the RST AGM. Since then I have become increasingly frustrated by the speculation surrounding these events and my role in them. As RST have refused to publish my statement I will publish it on a separate thread. This will explain the reason for my resignation as Secretary. However you may be interested in the background to these events. At a meeting with the auditors that I attended on 4 August 2010 along with the Treasurer, Christine Somerville and the Treasurer elect, Alison Mueller, Christine stated that sometime between September and November 2008, two cheques were issued to RST by followfollow.com totalling Ã?£2,690. These cheques bounced. The monies were not fully repaid (bar Ã?£30 still outstanding at the financial year end) until March 2010. This means that followfollow.com had a free loan of Trust monies for the best part of 18 months. Christine has stated in a post on this web site ââ?¬Å?it was paid off, the majority a few months laterââ?¬Â. This would depend on your definition of ââ?¬Å?a few monthsââ?¬Â. In fact none of the debt had been paid off by 5 April 2009. Christine has also stated in another post on this web site ââ?¬Å?However, to be clear, this was not a loan, interest free or otherwise. Knowing the circumstances, our auditors were very clear about that.ââ?¬Â Christine is mistaken. The auditors categorised the debt as a loan in their management letter of 10 August 2010 and did so again (twice) when RST put my AGM statement to them this week. The auditors are correct. In fact the first draft of the Auditorââ?¬â?¢s management letter issued on 9 August 2010 referred only to: ââ?¬Â¢ Losses on functions. ââ?¬Â¢ Lack of control over expenditure. ââ?¬Â¢ Failure to maintain an up to date share register. In my opinion as Secretary the debt gave rise to breaches of Rule 6 regarding the application of our profits and Rules 74 & 75 which refer to conflicts of material financial interest. In the circumstances, I was very surprised that the auditors had not even mentioned the debt and other important matters in their letter so I sent them an email on 9 August 2010 in which I reminded them of: "ââ?¬Â¢ Income & Expenditure being received and paid by outside organisations e.g. Erskine Appeal, Sam English Committee, Follow Follow. ââ?¬Â¢ The high number of cash transactions and instances where cash income is not banked at all but used to make payments. ââ?¬Â¢ The difficulty of allocating income from incomplete records - all income should be banked by the Treasurer in my opinion. ââ?¬Â¢ The debt from unpaid cheques last year, which as far as I can understand arose from some combination of the first two factors mentioned above, which means that there were breaches of Rule 6, 74 & 75 at least until the debt(s) were cleared this year." I copied this email to Christine and Alison and neither responded to me. The auditors stated that they were happy to include the additional points and revised their draft to include comments on all these matters as set out in the Statement that I was not allowed to read at the AGM. I attached a copy of the auditorââ?¬â?¢s revised draft to the resignation email that I sent to all members of the Board on 12 August 2010. On Thursday last, the Interim Secretary advised me that subsequently the auditors dropped the reference to the loan in the final version of their letter based on the legal advice received by the Board. I have asked for sight of the legal advice but this has not been forthcoming. They also dropped all references to the cash transactions; no explanation has been given for that, so one can only speculate as to the reasons for the auditors actions in that respect. It should be noted that the Auditorââ?¬â?¢s Report issued with the Accounts states that in their opinion the financial statements give a true and fair view of the Societyââ?¬â?¢s affairs as at 5 April 2010. I hope I have clarified these matters but I will do my best to answer any further questions that arise. There are some other inaccuracies and questions posed in the RST AGM thread that I will try to answer as well. Alan S Harris 26 September 2010.

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