3909 04

D'Artagnan, I have no issue with anyone raising legitimate concerns but when I go on Twitter and read clowns making comments that I looked drunk at the Club AGM then a line has been crossed.

You looked drunk? At 11:00am?? Who on earth said that?

Mind you, I could have done with a hip flask full of brandy that day. **** me, was it cold!

I'm not even an RST member, but I suggest that you might want to alter your tone on here because calling any Rangers fans and their organisations 'absurdly marginalised sect' and 'pathetic little cult' is unacceptable.

The second one is a little strong maybe but I think the first has some validity....anyway, no offence intended to Christine, the RST or to this board.

I am, however, almost speechless at continued attempts to push the RST in the wake of this latest, self-inflicted calamity. I genuinely struggle to see where they go from here, particularly if a wider fan ownership or fan membership vehicle emerges.

You know what, Christine? The whole support has finally seen through your absurdly marginalised sect and your wholly misplaced faith in a man whose behaviour has made fools of you and every one of your pathetic little cult,

I think you should let Mark know that screen shots have been taken of FM Bear's posts on FF last night. The Dingwall-led RST is dead. All the effort you've expended these last eleven years has counted for nothing. How does that make you feel?

I think you need to rein it in. You're making multiple allegations of your own here and none of them have any solid foundations.

Do you now? How about you call off your Pavlovian attack dogs, who spring into action as soon as someone dares to suggest Dingwall may not be the Messiah? Do that and then then we'll chat.

Everyone is interested in the truth, so in the interests of transparency, what's your username/s on other Rangers forums? Are you willing to tell us that? I'll happily do likewise.

Sure. My RM username is Captainof Industry. I'd give you my FF login but I've now been life banned 5 times. You can have my VB username if you like but I imagine it may not be of much use to you??

Fifteen posts since March 2nd, and fourteen of them on this one, non football, topic. One would almost suspect a personal involvement/agenda/angle were one suspicious.

One might possibly answer by pointing out the endless RST/FF-led calls for complete transparency and the removal of spivs from the club. Whither such calls today?

Transparency, the absence of spivery and my continuing quest for truth; that's all I seek.

I am indebted to a Gersnet member for drawing my attention to the story on STV last night. I was fairly sure that my name would come up in this connection, so I have reviewed this thread today.

 

The reason I have not been on here for some time is that I honestly got fed up with all the boardroom shenanigans and decided to concentrate on watching the team play football. Gersnet can be a bit of an addiction and when I found myself being accused of spamming various threads I thought it was time to give it a rest for a while.

 

I can state categorically that I am not the source of any current story about Mr Dingwall and have no knowledge whatsoever of any complaint against him at this time or indeed anything to with RST. I have not had any involvement with RST since I resigned from the Board in October 2010.

 

However, since reference has been made to the events at that time I will say briefly that at an audit meeting on 4 August 2010 I questioned an unspecified debt of £2,690 in the accounts which the Treasurer, Christine Somerville then confirmed arose from bounced cheques issued by followfollow.com. The Trust’s subsequent statement confirmed the exact amount of the debt, £2,690, and conceded that this was outstanding for an “extended period of time”, actually from 12 to 23 months, during which period partial repayments were made.

 

The Trust’s statement also said that their legal advice confirmed my view that there was a conflict of interest arising from the debt owed by Mr. Mark Dingwall and his position on the Board. The statement omited to mention that neither Mr. Dingwall nor the Chair brought this debt, or the conflict of interest arising, to the attention of the Board.

 

I quote the following from my resignation letter to the then Chair, Stephen Smith:

 

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 Dingwall’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.

As stated I have had no subsequent involvement with the Trust and have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the OP.

This is absolutely scandalous. So the RST chairman refused even to acknowledge a conflict of interest and misappropriation of funds by an RST board member?

It's now beyond question that some RST board members have conspired to cover up the truth in order to protect a colleague.

Ironic, isn't it, that some Rangers fans act very clearly against the best interests of both the club and the support simply because they happen to like or are friendly with Mark Dingwall?

Go on, Slinger. Give this a "Thanks".

I don't know anything about Mark Dingwall, but it does seem odd that a account that hasn't been posting for a while reappears when there's a topic about him.

Hey guys, if you don't want users posting about MD, can I suggest you don't start threads about him?

Catch y'all later, I'm off to uncover the truth. BRB when I find it.

is anyone else delighted no pope titanic boy is back?

Let's all join the Gunslinger peaceful protest rap:

Q. "What do we want?"

A. "Everyone to notice me."

You should have noticed my post about peaceful protest then.

 

Think martin Luther king.

These peaceful protests seek what, exactly? Sack the board? Sack Green & Whyte? Sack Irvine? Sack everyone who might stand in Paul Murray's way? Close down VB & RM?

All of the above?

You will need to throw me in with him. Ive paid for tickets this season but wont again till we have a board we can trust.

 

Will I take the free tickets I get offered or buy from forlan instead of rangers. Im not sure yet but maybe.

I noticed on FF this week you're planning to take part in "direct action" at the AGM, Slinger. What's the plan? Forcing directors to run the gauntlet as they enter the stadium? Throwing eggs at directors?

I saw both these suggestions on the thread where you confirmed your intention to participate. Deal us in, please?

Why would myself or anyone here want to conceal anything? There's RST board members on the forum quite regularly, but I doubt if they'll comment until the Trust has had time to sort this out. I'm sure we all want to know what it's about, even those of us who are not Trust members, but then it's out of nothing but nosiness.

 

In the meantime it might be prudent to avoid letting your tongue puncture your cheek on this quest for the truth!

Sounds like you're making increasingly weak excuses for the RST and DIngwall. It also seems clear you're happy for wholly unfounded allegations against other parties to remain uncontested on your site; you even denied the existence of these allegations.

I'll stop seeking the truth around the same time people stop lying to my face.

I see very few people directly blaming anyone. People are clearly interested in what's going on. Judging by the number of posts from you on the subject, you seem quite keen to get involved in the commentary yourself, so what's your own interest?

Did you miss post #6?

"Regular readers will not be at all surprised at the identity of the person contacting news desks attempting to spread the story."

Toxic? Weekend before club agm?

Looks like direct blame to me.

My interest is solely in seeking to uncover the truth. Do you and others on Gersnet seek to conceal it?

clearly somethings going on.

 

equally clearly some people are gleefully overplaying it.

And equally clearly, others are using reports of an RST board member's suspension as an opportunity to hurl yet more allegations at the spivs, Jack Irvine, VB, RM, etc when the story clearly has nothing to do with any of them.

Of course, the whole story could indeed be a total fabrication aimed at discrediting both MD and the Trust. In which case, as approximately 16 hours have elapsed since the story broke, the RST board will have issued a clear and strenuous public denial in order to protect their colleague.

What have the RST said?

Read post #2 of this thread.

So Mark D hasn't been banned from the RST? Has he been suspended from the RST board, though? I suspect he has, as he's acknowledged the existence of a complaint against him in his denial.

Unless you're saying the complaint itself is evidence of infiltration of the RST board by one or more of MD's many haters. Is that where you are on this?

Looks a bit like a concerted little campoaign to discredit the Trust and/or some of its high-ups.

 

Sadly enough, even if the stuff is a hoax, some dirt will cling to the organisation and MD.

I have no idea what this means. The RST suspending a board member is evidence of a plot to discredit the RST?

You'll have to explain that one.

So there is an active RST investigation into MD's conduct? This is in addition to the complaint made by Allan Harris some 3 years ago?

I wonder if the new allegation is also of a financial nature, or perhaps some behavioural transgression?

This speculation can only damage the RST until someone comes clean.

I'm a bit confused by the replies on this thread. STV quote Mark D saying he can't comment on reports of his being asked to step down from the RST board. So far, I've seen Jack Irvine, the spivs, VB and RM blamed for this. Are you guys being serious? I have an awful feeling you might be.

I'm wondering what Mark's colleagues on the RST board have said abot these disgraceful lies. They have issued an immediate statement defending MD and refuting these scandalous allegations, yes?

I'm afraid the Jig story is true. Two NARSA committee members confirmed that he accepted an invite then asked not only for NARSA to fund one of his brothers' costs but also for business class flights and "alcohol". Jig apparently goes on holiday with both brothers every year and was willing to pay for one to attend NARSA but not both.

There's a rather more disturbing story of what Jig did when he realised the story had got out. If I'm given the OK, I'll post it on here later today.

theirs no point being unhappy with performances and saying they need to be worthy then doing nothing about it.

 

failure to act will be a mistake for charles imho. quite possibly a very costly one. 9k season book holders didnt renew to watch us this year. that number may rise to see us play the same dross again with the same dross on the park.

Are you proposing CG replaces McCoist as manager, GS?

As far as I'm aware, going to a football game isn't a crime. The way these people have been vilified is beyond a joke. Yes, I agree they shouldn't have attended and the boycott should've been 100% but a couple hundred fans went. So what? The vast majority of Rangers fans stayed away and as far as I'm concerned it was a success.

 

We've got more pressing issues right now, for example, the duds on the field and the duds in the dugout.

True, there are more pressing matters but the ignoble 300 deserve every bit of criticism coming their way.

i firmly believe yesterday should see the end to a few rangers careers. i honestly do. several of those players should be replaced with kids for the rest of the season and told to find new clubs asap. in recent years the lack of atmosphere has been a problem for us at ibrox, its no longer hostile, so i take your point about that part of it.

The Rangers careers of the 4 ex-SPL duds (Shiels, Templeton, Sandaza & Black) and, more importantly, the Rangers managerial career of the man who bought them should be over after yesterday's flop.

An SPL boycott would make much more sense, and be a lot more damaging to all of them. A cup game where we were all desperate to get through was a terrible choice of a boycott. Especially when we get half the gate money. It just proved to be more of a hindrance than anything else.

Sorry, what does this mean? We should have staged an SPL boycott instead of boycotting an away Cup game at an SPL club's ground?

You've lost me.

How could an agent refuse an approach from Rangers ? is this the same individual who now works for Bridge litigation ? the mob that employs Ms Gribbon?

Goodwillie quoted in the Herald:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/ready-to-step-out-into-the-unknown.14706408?_=903e461ed85ec63c6f8520eefb6ff6a11ade004c

“On the Sunday night I knew I wanted to come to Blackburn and all the other stuff was just talk,” said Goodwillie. “I knew about Rangers’ interest but that was it. I was in a hotel with Ricky Gillies [PFA agent], he made sure my head was clear and I wasn’t thinking about it. I was focused on coming to Blackburn.”

That's how.

It was Goodwillie's agent, ex-St Mirren and Aberdeen player Ricky Gillies, who refused to consider any approach from Rangers, rather than the player himself.