Frankie

I'm about to leave work so will come back to this later...

I should also add that any cynicism about accountants in this thread is mainly because of the context of this forum where we have two such professionals as well as other people who regularly come into contact with them; be it socially or through business. It's a bit of gentle ribbing between members who know each other. I'm sure if Ms Mueller was present she'd enjoy that as well as refuting the less gentle cynicism.

A few things if I may: Unfortunately by their very nature internet forums and any kind of thread you care to mention often deviate from the point at hand to irrelevant tangents. Just as conversations and opinions change in real life, so they do here. Sure some people won't concentrate on the matter at hand and that may well derail the odd debate somewhat. Indeed, there is a fine line between what is appropriate and what is not. Petty comparisons to Shipman (though not meant seriously I'm sure) are exactly that and the only person that doesn't gain from such comparisons is the person who posts it. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that. To that end, I'm sure (or I'd hope) that the Trust (like the rest of us) are more than capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff. To allow a minority of people to tarnish the opinion of the majority is unfair and incorrect. Just as any Trust critics have tried to show that certain recent issues are the fault of a minority of board members, not the whole organisation. Of course controversial subjects such as financial irregularities are going to provoke speculation; some helpful, probably even more not. However, once again, any attempt to deflect from the actual problems raised to the way people make their criticism (or indeed the critics themselves) is somewhat disingenuous and equally unhelpful. Finally, there's no need to protest your innocence over defending the Trust or such-like. Balance to the debate is welcome and more people would do well to examine both sides more often. To that end, perhaps you'd care to examine the Trust contribution to inaccuracy, besmirching professionals and less than constructive suspicions?

Nobody has suggested otherwise... Indeed, most of the posts in this thread express disagreement with the original somewhat cynical post. But that's what open debate is about.

So they've no idea then but will tar everyone with the same brush...?

Former, former, I think...! :D Obviously myself or nobody I know knew about any Trust dialogue with 'Mr Big' never mind derail what may well have proved a very exciting opportunity for all of us.

According to Trust board members on FF, that was the, erm, "former board members'" fault as well if I recall correctly...

No probs, Friday am is fine.

Just to make clear, this is RST business not RSA....

Can only echo the words of Andy Kerr.

I'd like to see a more attacking team but Valencia are a much better side than the Turks so I'd be happy enough with the same strategy which has served us well so far. By no stretch of the imagination were we defensive against Bursaspor and we'll gain more credibility by gaining more points than losing them.

Cheers pete!

Actually, I do see the response you mention as to direction. Bit of a cop-out and you didn't address my riposte; although if you were too busy that's fair enough. Perhaps you can do so now as well as give a personal opinion on the way forward for the Trust? I just want to make clear that despite the nonsense from some and the strong criticisms I've made, I'm genuinely interested in this and just want a successful Trust.

I've already said Mr Harris should have handled the denial from the acting chair better but that still does not explain why the acting chair denied him the opportunity to speak there - pedantry aside of course. Related to that my question of why didn't the board raise it themselves is still applicable despite Craig's answer - which still suggested the Trust should have done so to avoid the bad publicity you've received since. I must have missed your outline of how the Trust intend to recover from this episode and what you intend doing to improve the organisation as a whole so if you could point me in its direction, I'd be much obliged. Moreover, given Mr Harris is being reprimanded as cynical and inaccurate on internet forums, what discipline is going to be handed out to board members have been guilty of similar divisive behaviour elsewhere?

Of course the chap was seeking attention; he had been denied the platform to give his account at the AGM, as well as a belated email, so felt he had to do something to reach the membership to make them aware of the issues at hand. It wasn't as if the rest of the board were going to do it, hiding the issue from each other then from the membership. I read BH's 'apologetic' responses as someone who didn't want to use this method but had little option. I'd contend his private actions, along with making public a very serious issue, does indeed take 'baws' and the guy has attempted to follow up his statement with further comments which show his sincerity to debate. Christine has been challenged herself and has failed to do the same more than once without good reason unfortunately. None of the rest of us will know for sure just who is telling the truth here so I think the middle ground is a fair place to stand for the majority. Mistakes have been made and questionable actions have formed part of that. So far I don't see anyone taking responsibility for those mistakes other than to blame a respected businessman for having the temerity to correctly point out irregularities. To that end, I've not seen one apology for these shady dealings, just deflection after deflection. As for current internet feelings on the Trust, well some people's attitudes are less than constructive but the RST themselves are just as culpable as anyone else in that regard and that is especially disappointing as they purport to lead and unite. Reasonable questions have been ignored, valid criticism scoffed at and people nothing to do with this episode lied about. Just when will someone step forward and say enough is enough and lead the Trust back to respectability?

You're welcome mate... I think most people on Gersnet have contributed well to this debate and look forward to your riposte and any further comment from the RST. Nobody is enjoying what is a difficult time for the RST (and yourself I'm sure) so I'd urge you to be very careful in what you say so the neutral (and the RST membership of course) are given a true picture of events.

Ah, I had interpreted broadsheet to mean super-king size duvets for any pleasantly plump pressmen with relationship, er, challenges... My bad.

I'm sure Mark Guidi and Bill Leckie would not have been involved. They are both upstanding citizens and would not be guilty of such behaviour.

No probs! I'm never that coherent when on the Drambuie anyway...

Plenty room - I'll add you to the opening post...

I don't know but I don't think it is fair to speculate about someone before they've even spent more than a few weeks in the job. It is up to Ms Mueller to prove her worth, irrespective of who she is or is not friends with.

They spent �£70million in the summer so I'd imagine that will be pretty high compared to most other teams...

PB: Nobody is pretending the obvious issues that remain prevalent across the community can be addressed overnight. It would take a fair bit longer than that and even then success wouldn't be guaranteed when you read some of the claims made. However, that shouldn't be an excuse not to try and build bridges. After all, I'm sure we all work with people we don't particularly like to ensure our places of work thrive. Just because we're Rangers fans doesn't mean we all have the same opinions and beliefs so it is healthy to debate these when any disagreement comes up. I genuinely hope progress and common ground can be found and, as always, myself and this website are most interested in any initiatives that could facilitate this. In addition, if the Trust have a problem with me personally (and it seems a few board members do) then fair enough, there are other people on this forum just as (and indeed more) capable than me who can represent Gersnet. I'm sure the other forums would say the same and I'd hope the Trust would also be similarly flexible. I invite the Trust to lead the way.

Yep, that's ideal mate!

Spot on...