BrahimHemdani

Watched Valencia win 2-1 last night but it was 1-0 for a long time. They are a good team but Barcelona they are not. Bilbao attacked them throughout the second half and caused them a lot of problems. Would that we would do the same. Chance would be a fine thing. I know the 5-4-1 has been successful so far but I don't fancy us with 40/60 possession against them.

I am making this statement as my final contribution to the debate regarding the Trust Accounts and the AGM, and in so doing, I want to announce publicly my resignation from the Board of Rangers Supporters Trust; notice of which was submitted to the Chair and Acting Secretary a short time ago. I should preface this statement with some information about the role of the Secretary. Whilst the Secretary is a servant and advisor to the Board, he or she is also a servant of the members. In an ideal world, the interests of the members and the board would coincide, but unfortunately this is not always the case. In such situations, the Secretary has a critical role in bringing potential conflicts to members' attention. That is not to say that whenever a Secretary does so, the Secretary is right and the Board is wrong. Such decisions ultimately are for the members, the Secretary's role is to make sure the members are aware of everything they need to know in order to arrive at their own conclusions. I am advised that the Secretary’s responsibility to the members is greater than any responsibility owed to the Board or its advisors. In addition to my responsibility to members, as someone who makes a living in financial services, I also have a responsibility to my family and my business. I believed that issues brought out by the audit of the Trust’s accounts gave rise to breaches of very important Rules in the Trust's Constitution. Although some might quibble over whether these issues and the amounts involved merited my actions, I can only say that it is not the place of the Secretary to second guess the members’ interpretation of the circumstances, any more than it is the job of the police to second-guess a jury in a court case. It is simply my job to make the members aware so that they can make a judgment, which is the role accorded to them in the Trust's Rules and the law of the land. Bearing in mind these principles, I was very uncomfortable with the first draft of the auditor’s management letter. Therefore, I asked them to consider including references to certain matters, and at the time they agreed that these references were appropriate. It is a fact that the auditors concluded that the breaches of Rules that I had identified could lead to action by the FSA or HM Revenue and Customs. Furthermore they concluded that controls over income and expenditure were weak and that this could lead to wrong amounts being paid, expenses not being recovered, the possibility of inaccurate accounts and an increased likelihood of errors and misappropriations. These were not my words; these were the auditor’s words. Under the circumstances I determined that I could not sign the accounts. At the same time, I resolved to resign as Secretary, both in line with the diktats of my conscience and business ethics and in order to be able to speak more freely if necessary at the forthcoming AGM. The auditor’s management letter is a tool to assist in the improvement of financial controls. Therefore I sent it to every member of the Board. The only agenda or “goal” that I had in so doing was to demonstrate the auditor’s support for the new financial management procedures that I had written some months earlier and thereby increase the probability of their being adopted. In am aware that the management letter was subsequently amended again but the Board’s recent statement appears to confuse the management letter with the Audit Report attached to the Accounts. Following my resignation I was not involved in the Board’s final preparations for the AGM but I can say that I fully expected them to make full disclosure to the members either in the published accounts or by way of a statement at the AGM. Frankly I was astonished that the Board's preferred outcome would be to prevent members being made aware of what I considered material facts in relation to the Accounts. At the AGM, I was prevented from making a statement when the accounts were being discussed. The Trust Board's statement in recent days suggests that I was told I could speak later in the meeting; I did not hear that said and neither did a number of others. Regardless, this is to miss the critical point. By the latter part of the agenda, the members would have agreed the accounts, and so closed the book on these matters. Had members heard my statement and wished to take action later in the meeting, it would have been too late in law. At the time, I did momentarily consider staying and trying to reintroduce my statement later in the meeting but by that time it could not have had any impact, which is the reason why I left at that point. My immediate thoughts were to find a means by which I could communicate the pertinent information to the people who needed to know it, the members. It was whilst considering this that my attention was drawn to reports of the meeting starting to be discussed on message boards. As these matters were already in the public domain, and since my actions were subject to discussion, I felt the only proper response was to place my thoughts on record, lest they be subject to further speculation. I did this with a very heavy heart, because in so doing, these matters came to the attention of non-members. I can only say that I had never intended for this to be so, but the action was forced upon me by the failure of the AGM Chair to allow me to speak at the critical point and to the subsequent reporting of events by some of those present. Whilst there is much with which I could take issue in the Trust’s statement, I see nothing to be gained by a further war of words. However, I reject as utter nonsense, the suggestion that my claims were in anyway exaggerated. On the contrary the Trust’s statement confirms the exact amount of the debt quoted by me, Ã?£2,690 and concedes that this was outstanding for an “extended period of time”, which is a polite way of saying from 12 to 23 months. However, in my opinion, the single most important point in the Trust’s statement is that their legal advice confirms my view that there was indeed a conflict of interest arising from the debt owed by Mr. Mark Dingwall. The statement omits to mention that neither Mr. Dingwall nor the Chair brought this debt, or the conflict of interest arising, to the attention of the Board. When I resigned as Secretary, several other Directors persuaded me to remain as a Director. However, the statement of the Trust Board makes it abundantly clear that their views are now vastly different to mine. Therefore, I can see that little positive can emerge for the Trust, its members or I from my continued membership of the Board. Furthermore, I cannot in all conscience remain in membership of a Board which takes such a different view of critical matters for the organisation and so I have tendered my resignation as a Director of the Trust. I am glad to have had the opportunity to serve as a Director and Secretary of RST and I am proud of my contribution. 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. My actions have only ever been in fulfillment of my legal and ethical responsibility to enable the members to have possession of information that is rightfully theirs, and having done so, I will be making no further comment. I remain a member of the Trust, and a supporter of its goals of supporter involvement at the highest possible level in the ownership and governance of Rangers Football Club, and wish it every success in pursuit of these objectives. Alan S Harris 2 October 2010

Text of my letter sent by email to Stephen Smith S Smith, Esq, Chair Rangers Supporters Trust Saturday, 02 October 2010 Dear Stephen, RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD OF RANGERS SUPPORTERS TRUST I hereby tender my resignation from the Board of Rangers Supporters Trust with immediate effect. As you know it was my intention to resign from the Board at the same time as resigning as Secretary on 12 August 2010 but several Board members persuaded me to remain on the Board as they sought to remove yourself and Mr Mark Dingwall. At the same time I wanted to ensure that my financial management proposals were implemented in full. However, following the AGM and the Boardââ?¬â?¢s subsequent statement it has become clear that little positive can emerge for the Trust, its members or I from my continued membership of the Board. Furthermore, I cannot in all conscience remain in membership of a Board which takes such a different view of critical matters for the organisation. In my opinion your position as a Board member is untenable for a number of reasons not the least of which was your failure as Chair to advise the Board of the debt owed by Mr Dingwall from September 2008 to August 2010. Equally I am of the opinion that Mr Dingwallââ?¬â?¢s position is untenable for a number of reasons, principal amongst which was his failure to declare the conflict of interest that arose from his debt as required by rule or to stand down from the Board at that time. I call upon you and Mr Dingwall to resign forthwith. I share the view expressed in some quarters that the best way forward for the Trust at this critical time would be to seek out and appoint an ââ?¬Å?independentââ?¬Â person of standing and gravitas in the greater Rangers community as Chair. Yours sincerely, Alan S Harris

I can confirm that I was the RST official contact with Ellis' representative in Guernsey and that I did not receive a business plan. If any member of the Board had such a plan then it was not presented to the MEC or the Board during my time in office; beyond that I cannot speculate.

I said I wasn't going to answer any more questions on these threads but as I created this new thread and since this is not directly related to the accounts or my resignation and is in no way privileged information, I can say that the Management Executive Committe (MEC) was formed in February 2010 with a remit approved by the full Board principally to deliver the agreed action of the Board between Board meetings. The members were Gordon Dinnie, Vice Chair, myself as Secretary, Mark Dingwall, Gordon Stewart, Kenny park and Andrew McIntyre. It met on 10 occasions between 16 February and 26 May, 2010. Ellis was discussed on numerous occasions and the point I was making is that no business plan was ever put on the table for discussion. So if one was in existence, it was not withheld by the MEC. I hope this clarifies that matter.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken the trouble to post comments on the two statements that I published here on Sunday night, whether you have agreed with me or not. The purpose of publishing the statements on here was to have the informed debate that did not take place at the AGM and I believe that that has now been achieved. I have made my reasons for not signing the accounts and resigning as Secretary absolutely clear and I have done my best to answer the relevant questions that have arisen. However, in the light of the RST statement I will not be answering any more questions on these threads. I will make a further statement on the RST statement before the end of the week.

Rangers have it up as 49,578 but there is no way there were that many there, large gaps in the Broomloan Rear and quite a few empty seats in the MRE where I sit. May have been the paid attendance but not bums on seats. Even I was singing which is quite unusual!

Ellis was not prepared to speak to RST directly but if what you say is correct then it seems that he may have been speaking to at least one Board member who did not report that fact to the Exec or full Board. Unfortunately it was not Miss Moneypenny.

That says it all , I was slaughtered at the time , however the guy who told me is still 100% about it , also as I stated MD both by phone and PM acknowledged that they had recieved his business plan . If that is so and I have no way of knowing, then one can only speculate why it was not brought to the attention of the Executive or the Board?

And since you bring that subject up , it has since transpired that I was correct re-ellis and his business plan being sent to the RST , the man at the center of this fiasco has since admitted to certain people that he did in fact recieve a business plan from Ellis , the only bit I got wrong was the courier part , but there you go . Seems mister Dingwall is everybit as good at smoke and mirrors as the mint Whilst it's completely off the subject, I can say that I was in contact with Ellis representative in Guernsey by letter, email and phone officially on behalf of the Trust and unofficially through an intermediary and I never heard of or received a business plan nor was one ever mentioned at an RST Executive or Board Meeting.

Milne Craig, Paisley firm.

The RST Members.

Christine, I am sorry that you don't seem to believe me. Whatever I am I am not a lier, I think you know that. I honestly didn't know what to do after the AGM. My first inclination was to go to the press but before I decided how best to proceed it was on the net. I did not write or contribute in any way to the original "report" of the AGM that appeared here or wherever it first appeared. I do not know who wrote it. I did not ask anyone to do anything on my behalf. I did not know this site existed. I don't know the identities of anyone here except yourself and Ben Campbell. I was on FF a few times before being banned. The only other Rangers site I have ever been on before now is "bluenose" which as you know, I was monitoring for the Board but that is so long ago that I have forgotten my login and password. The first I knew about all this was when a friend sent me a text on Tuesday. I reconsidered going to the press but decided to give RST a chance to publish my statement, which as you know was refused. I wrote the background piece on the train up and down from Aberdeen on Saturday/Sunday. I hope this satisfies you. Alan

I was banned some time ago, long before the present discussion. I think my views on certain issues were too moderate for the proprietor's taste. He did kindly offer to reinstate me some months back but I did not take him up on it. So, NO, I won't be going there (too much like the lion's den) but I have no objection to any of my comments being copied to that or any other site. I see that I have also been invited to RM with the suggestion that if I don't go there I have something to hide; which is, of course, utter nonsense. Note that at the same time I have been accused of breaching confidentiality? It is simply a matter of time, I am doing my best on this site and was up until 4.00am yesterday, if I start somewhere else it will be 24/7. I explained at the outset why I registered on this site, I don't know and don't care about all the various factions and what motives are attributed to them. I know I did the right thing by not signing the accounts and am comforted by those professionally qualified people who have suppoorted my stance. Thank you for your kind remarks about my credibility. That and my integrity are very important to me.

As is a Club55 Premier first class return to Aberdeen for �£23!

I appreciate your concern but really don't mind "Mr Pedantic". Actually you are not the first to infer that I like to "dot i's and cross t's" . When I was on the FIMBRA Council one of my colleagues wrote exactly that about me only he said that Alan Harris likes to dot every "i" and cross every"t". I am happy with that description.

I can confirm that the sum of �£2,300 inc VAT was spent on legal advice re a proposed Gersave2 model aimed at higher net worth individuals. It may not suprise you to learn that I was the only Board member to oppose this expenditure because in my opinion there were not sufficient or perhaps even any such people prepared to invest their money in such a scheme to make it viable. This was nothing to do with the "Mr Big" model as has been wrongly reported elsewhere. No money other than printing costs was spent on the "Mr Big" model but a great deal of time was invested by a number of people. I am not certain but I think that the balance of the profesional fees is commission and fees on share purchases for new members.

Exactly and then they would have said you can't say anything about the accounts because they've been approved! And, by the way, there was no vote taken, so were they approved?

BS may I just point oput that it was on the internet for 5 days before I published the statement that I was refused the opportunity to read at the AGM. I did not ask or encourage anyone to put it on the internet.

Not for me to say, that's a matter for the members as a whole.

The irregularity was what was effectively a loan to a Board member, which the auditors stated was not allowed in the RST Rules and the failure to disclose said loan. By the way it would have been included in the total debtors last year, sorry don't have that figure here, but in my view and others who are professionally qualified in that area it should have been mentioned specifically. I have alluded to the mismanagement re cash transactions in the detailed statement I'll try to amplify that a bit once I get through the other thread. I am happy to help you understand what went on but you may have noticed I was up till 4.00am yesterday.

That is exactly what I did. I'll change my name to "Troublemaker" makes a change from "Mr Pedantic"

Thank you, don't think I could have put it better myself. And by the way, consider this. If I had heard the Chair say that I could read the statement later, which I didn't, don't you think that I would have waited? It took me all week to write for goodness sake. Anyone who knows anything about me, including the Board of RST know that I am not afraid to speak my mind.

I am happy to answer this question. I am a qualified independent financial adviser (Cert PFS) with 30+ years experience of financial services and was a Director of the regulator FIMBRA from 1992 - 1997. I cannot answer for the auditors. The auditors stated in their first revised draft management letter that "breaching these Rules could lead to action being taken by the FSA or our taxable status being challenged by the Revenue". As stated 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 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. Furthermore, I took the view that if I had had signed the Accounts I would be putting my professional standing at risk by condoning the mismanagement and irregularities disclosed in the audit. Rightly or wrongly that was my view at the time and remains by view today, regardless of the fact that the auditors may have changed their mind for whatever reason.

Perhaps you will allow me to answer this question and make another couple of points at the same time. I have not made any allegation of criminal wrongdoing. What I said in my correspondence with the auditors was that "The debt from unpaid cheques last year ..... means that there were breaches of Rule 6, 74 & 75 at least until the debt(s) were cleared this year."" The auditorââ?¬â?¢s response was that "The Society's Rules that determine its objects do not include making loans to third parties". So to be 100% clear, I called the amount of the unpaid cheques a debt, the auditors called it a loan and did so again (twice) when RST put my AGM statement to them last week. I stand by my opinion that whether the amount of the unpaid cheques was a debt or a loan there were breaches of Rules 74 and 75 of the Society's Constitution which state that "no person is allowed to serve on the Board who has ââ?¬Å?any material financial interest personally or as member of a firm or company....trading for profit or in any way whatsoever in any contract or other transaction with the Society.ââ?¬Â AND ââ?¬Å?Any member of the Board who discloses a financial interest ..... must vacate their office." Of course the person who owed the money did not declare the financial interest nor did the Chair or Vice Chair who had been informed by the Treasurer report the matter to the Board. I did not say that SD ââ?¬Å?are fully in agreement with my actionsââ?¬Â. What I said was that SD ââ?¬Å?have indicated that they feel I have acted with proprietyââ?¬Â. SD is a membership organisation, they are not regulators. However, they do have a Code of Conduct and any member Trust may be excluded for bringing the Trust movement into disrepute. I am sure that you will appreciate that as a Director of SD I cannot say any more than that. I would also like to clarify that whilst I was nominated by RST and seconded by Hamilton Accies, I do not represent any particular Trust, rather I represent the Trust movement as a whole and Scottish Trusts in particular. I hope this fully answers your questions.