plgsarmy

I don't see that there were 49,000. There were gaps at the back of the broomloan and in the main stand. Couldn't see the club deck but I'd guess that there were gaps there too. Probably somewhere inbetween.

I'd agree with that. The Copland and Govan looked pretty full but some gaps in the Broomloan. How good was it though to have an almost full stadium at the final whistle. I also thought Build My Gallows was brilliant tonight.

 

I humbly ask that one of the Trust board members clarify why Alan Harris' statement is "cynical" ? On the face of it and at its mose base level, this is someone who, in their PAYING profession, operates under the auspices of the FSA. This is someone who appears to have been told (by the auditors) that the potential rule breaches could possibly cause the FSA to take action. That in itself could open Mr Harris up to regulatory investigation and, ultimately, suspension from doing business. So can someone from the RST board please tell me why Mr Harris is being cynical and not merely attempting to protect both his professional integrity and his livelihood. Yet here we stand with the Trust, again, suggesting that it is the big bad "cynical" Mr Harris who is at fault for this debacle.

 

Before I reply I'd like to hear Alan's responses to the questions I posted last night and were obviously missed.

Just to be clear Alan, did you or did you not offer to sign off the accounts if certain Board members resigned and various other demands were met?

Did you fail to attend the last 2 Board meetings where much of this could have been cleared up? Did you make the excuse for not attending the last meeting (our pre-AGM meeting) that there was no time and venue given, even though the notice said Saturday and the venue was going to be one of two we use about 500 yards from each other. Going by our constitution, then technically you were correct but with such important matters to discuss I'm surprised you didn't make the effort as no other member of the Board objected to it.

What is your version of what GD actually said to you at the AGM? Did you try to make it clear that your statement was pertaining to the accounts? Why did you not try to force the issue?

Did you try to clarify the circumstances of the debt by asking Mr Dingwall?

Haud oan hen, am no taking sides, seems to me like one big bun fight, for the sake of all, RST should liquidate forthwith.

 

Maybe then we can have a fresh look at things, my own idea would be one organisation for all, but I still think as orgs go, none will have any say or influence in or on the club.

I know you're not taking sides but I don't want my name plastered across the Internet accusing me of something I didn't do.

What a fekin farce gettin worse by the minuteffs somebody dynamite every one o these trust threads.....

 

 

 

Badger

.........

 

 

Group:Admin

Posts:14,213

Joined:18-December 06

Gender:Male

Location:Ayrshire

Posted Today, 04:52 PM

Just to be clear, I banned Christine Sommerville from here.

 

Why?

 

She'd been PM'ing influential members on this forum twisted information about Scott (McMillan). This was reported to me by one of the people who received a PM. Sorry, but if somebody is distributing distorted and potentially damaging information about the person who is organising our dinner (on our website), which in turn undermines our event, they are getting banned. I've no doubts at all the intent of this was malicious.

 

Just to be clear, Scott buys a lot of merchandise for charity events, one such purchase items may of been fake (still not proven either way). The wording of the PM was such that it suggested Scott was responsible for distributing fake merchandise, whilst technically that isn't a lie, it's a pretty big twist on things.

 

To clarify (to the best of my knowledge), he was responsible (as agreed and approved by the RST board of the time) to purchase memorabilia for RST events. One such purchase was later revealed to perhaps be fake, and if true (never been proven either way), it's fair to say he'd been conned.

 

I'm sure Scott or anyone else more up to speed will provide more details of exactly what happened. I've had one conversation (over a year ago) about this.

I categorically deny that I attempted to bad mouth Scott in any way. I was explaining to someone why I wasn't going on the thread about last year's AGM. I didn't want to get involved in case the subject came up. Scott bought the items and I know this was done in good faith. I have never, ever, tried to suggest otherwise and have also discussed this with Scott who was fine about it. At the end of the day the RST had to write off �£3K due to this but I don't know anyone who said Scott had done this knowingly. That would be crazy.

"Outwith the accounting period" absolutely does NOT mean that it isnt relevant to the accounts.

 

Auditors are required by law to consider the financial statements up to the point in time they are "signed off" - being outwith the accounting period but those accounts still not being signed off is in no way a defence that whatever he was going to say was irrelevant to the accounts.

 

The accounts, at the time in question, were not signed off - so anything that AH had to say very well COULD have had an effect on the financial statements.

 

Also, if they were in the "Secretary's and Treasurer's report" section then these breaches of rules should STILL br brought to the meeting at that time. Breaches of the Trust's rules (I should say alleged breaches) should be within the secretary's report.

 

Sorry, but this all smells like a cover up job to me.

Sorry, I'll bow to your superior knowledge of these things. My main point is that AH stated he wanted to state why he resigned as secretary and was asked to keep it until the Q&A session. He could have stated that it was related to the accounts and he'd have to be heard. He didn't and chose to walk out the meeting.

PLG the biggest problem i have with all of this is you don't have to be a chartered accountant to know that even the money for a sheet of postage stamps has to appear somewhere in the accounts. Were you happy as treasurer that there was such a large amount of money missing from the funds that you could not account for on paper. I can't look after my own wallet, but i would imagine i would not find that acceptable in my responsibility as treasurer.

You must have known rules were being bent?

Sorry, but you have been misinformed. It was all accounted for.

I didn't hear the bit in bold but otherwise it was as you have said. I still fail to see why he was prevented from raising it at this point though.

Perhaps because he failed to indicate that it was connected. As far as we were concerned it was regarding breaches of rules that had occurred outwith the accounting period.

Are you trying to blame the former secretary for the chairman refusing him the opportunity to speak at the AGM?

 

Given that the board had taken legal advice and had got the auditor along to the AGM then it seems disingenuous to try and suggest that the Board and the Chairman did not know at least part of the content of his statement, and the fact that it was relevant to the accounts.

 

I am still unclear as to the rights and wrongs of the situation but I am convinced that that it was totally wrong for the chairman to prevent this from being discussed by the members at the AGM at the time when the former secretary tried to raise it.

No, I'm trying to establish his version of what was said to him at the AGM. I heard him say that he wished to say why he resigned as secretary and GD say that the section of the meeting was for specific questions on the Secretary's and Teasurer's reports and that he could speak at the Q&A session. I didn't hear AH say anything further than that other than okay and he sat down. I'm simply trying to establish what AH thought was said to him.

PLG:

 

I respect your right to ask questions to back up your point of view but it seems that is all you're doing here now while ignoring similar from other people.

 

It would be good to see the RST answer a few questions of how they intend to move forward from this.

Given that the Board hasn't met to discuss this than I don't think it's up to me to decide. We've actually only had two members contact us, one to ask for clarification about what's going on and another looking to join as a life member and make a donation. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of this but I'm sure if people look at the facts they will see that any mistakes made were not made through malicious intent nor anyone seeking financial gain.

The question that needs answering here seems to be the one that is being avoided, will it take a statement from the auditor(s) to rectify that.

 

One other thing, if the money that dinger had allegedly borrowed never existed in the accounts of rst, how could he have borrowed it.

 

As I understand it he gauranteed/underwrote any loss, with his money , maybe one of our resident bean counters can enlighten.

That is correct.

I have never been on VB but i would think if your going to shout from the Belfry then you have to expect an echo. Not letting people on to debate against them looks like a mirror image of all they seem to be against.

You can easily debate with them if you go onto a thread about the RST on Rangers Media. They are swarming all over it. No offence intended of course.

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.

Just to be clear Alan, did you or did you not offer to sign off the accounts if certain Board members resigned and various other demands were met?

Did you fail to attend the last 2 Board meetings where much of this could have been cleared up? Did you make the excuse for not attending the last meeting (our pre-AGM meeting) that there was no time and venue given, even though the notice said Saturday and the venue was going to be one of two we use about 500 yards from each other. Going by our constitution, then technically you were correct but with such important matters to discuss I'm surprised you didn't make the effort as no other member of the Board objected to it.

What is your version of what GD actually said to you at the AGM? Did you try to make it clear that your statement was pertaining to the accounts? Why did you not try to force the issue?

Did you try to clarify the circumstances of the debt by asking Mr Dingwall?

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.

So how did it get there Alan. Was it another Board member?

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.

That is my memory of what happened.

By this stage I think it must be abundantly clear to everyone that PLG (aka Christine Somerville) is unfit for any office, having neither the intellect nor experience to make sound judgement on issues of legality or finance. For years I've read her evasive brand of RST propaganda and silly politicking on various websites. She's far from the only one but she seems particularly keen to combine stupidity with self-publicity and deserves all criticism coming her way. If she had a fraction of the ability she claims, she would have disappeared from view long ago.

 

The only constructive thing she has contributed is to show a wider audience exactly why I've been evangelising against these dangerous clowns for years.

You know Maineflyer, you can resort to personal abuse all you want. It says much more about you than it says about me.

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.

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.

Christine will there be other comments or will we need to wait for the official RST statement on this?

B, I don't think I'll make further comment and will probably wait until our official statement.

At all times I have acted in the best interests of the Trust 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

Right Alan, so you have. Do SD have your version or what actually happened?

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 Secretary�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 auditor�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 �£2,690. These cheques bounced. The monies were not fully repaid (bar �£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 2010.

 

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 Auditor�s management letter issued on 9 August 2010 referred only to:

 

� Losses on functions.

 

� Lack of control over expenditure.

 

� 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:

 

"� Income & Expenditure being received and paid by outside organisations e.g. Erskine Appeal, Sam English Committee, Follow Follow.

 

� The high number of cash transactions and instances where cash income is not banked at all but used to make payments.

 

� The difficulty of allocating income from incomplete records - all income should be banked by the Treasurer in my opinion.

 

� 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 auditor�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 Auditor�s Report issued with the Accounts states that in their opinion the financial statements give a true and fair view of the Society�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.

Alan, I'm surprised that for someone normally so pedantic that your posted is littered with so many inaccuracies. I have highlighted the ones I know to be inaccurate and there are other parts when you refer to the auditors and loans that I am not aware of but I will certainly find out.

Just a few questions;

1) If you had 'kept your own counsel', why has this been all over the Internet since last Tuesday?

2) You stated at the AGM that you wanted to say why you resigned as Secretary. You were told that the section was dealing with the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports only. It was certainly not clear from the stage whether or not you said anything else. I only heard you say okay. You know the format of the AGM and any questions can be asked at this time yet you chose to leave.

3) You've contadicted youself by saying it was not paid off until March 2010 and then say none of the debt had been paid off by 5 April 2010. You have a speadsheet I sent you of all the transactions in the financial year. Perhaps you should have looked at when the bulk of this money was paid.

4) If the auditors said it was a loan, isn't that because you told them it was?

You may well play the martyr here Alan but please be aware that I too have a reputation to uphold. We all agreed that financial controls needed to be tightened and they have been.

Another cheap Houdini act. It doesn't matter what I have done, I'm not the one with RST responsibilities, you are. I haven't questioned your competence, I've simply pointed out your lack of it, something you have also referred to. Stop trying to play the martyr and focus instead on your record.

 

How about starting with you claim to know exactly what's required - share your wisdom.

Yet another play on what I said and a deflection on the main point made. Yeah, I'll discuss Trust strategy on here with you - not.

Is she a woman? All I can see is a failed ex-treasurer of the RST who's in a state of complete denial about what needs to be done to save the Trust and about her responsibilities in that regard. Male or female doesn't come into it, my quaint Victorian gentleman.

I know exactly what needs to be done Maineflyer but my views probably differ from yours. I would agree with you that gender doesn't matter, it's just a matter of common courtesy. I would never talk about any Rangers supporter on a public forum the way you have talked about me on this thread, maybe my standards are higher than others. People know who I am and you have questioned my competence, my integrity and much more. Still, whatever floats your boat. At least I have tried to do something to make a difference. What have you done?

You were the RST lady who spoke with me at the WRC some time back - who came straight out and asked me back into the fold - just after that summer of the mass resignations by various Board members......who guaranteed me that "I'd be kept in the information loop"...."that things would be different"......"honest.......nae' kiddin"......and so on."

 

You're the lady who has just admitted on here that the post you've just vacated was too much for you (all that traveling and cooking and so on)"

 

I fail to see what facts or words (above) I've twisted.

 

We did have that conversation at the WRC (1st paragraph above) where you did say those things (and more) - you admitted elsewhere on this thread that you weren't up to the task you took on at the RST (second paragraph above) and you referenced travel, cooking, cold weather in November? (Is the exact month that relevant?)

 

Those were the only places where I referred to your words.

 

I did add that there is no shame in admitting that a task is too much for you.

 

Don't feel bad about that - you may have felt pressurised to do it - I don't know, but please don't just reply to this post because you feel I need you to answer, in fact, it would be better if you didn't reply because, as I stated earlier.......put the shovel down and stop digging.

 

Feel free to correct where I got it wrong.

 

PS. Nice one with the Davie Cooper collection thing.

 

Credit where credit is due (No RST pun intended).

I didn't want to be treasurer but I took it on an as interim measure to help out until we could get someone suitably qualified to do it. It has taken two years to get that person, not through want of trying. The thing is, it isn't very appealing driving to Glasgow straight from work on a cold November evening to attend a meeting that you know won't finish until after 9 p.m. and then have to go home and cook dinner for your family. It's annoying having to use your summer holidays getting the accounts ready to go to the auditor. It's very easy to sit behind a keyboard and criticise though.

I didn't say I wasn't up to the task. I said I didn't want to do it but nobody else would. My reference to travel etc was to explain why it's not easy to get people to join the Board, not a complaint from me. I don't mind it buts lots of people aren't interested. I never denied the conversation we had in the WRC. People accuse us of not being prepared to build bridges but when we do look what happens. Anyway enjoy your night in the pub. I'll probably stay on here, shovel in hand, just to annoy Maineflyer.

And the good news is I know who you are too.

 

You were the RST lady who spoke with me at the WRC some time back - who came straight out and asked me back into the fold - just after that summer of the mass resignations by various Board members......who guaranteed me that "I'd be kept in the information loop"...."that things would be different"......"honest.......nae' kiddin"......and so on.

 

I declined that offer and, hindsight being a wonderful thing, I'm really glad of that.

 

You're the lady who has just admitted on here that the post you've just vacated was too much for you (all that traveling and cooking and so on) - and that's fine. No shame in admitting that a task is beyond you, but please, don't insult my limited intelligence by trying to defend the indefensible actions of the RST Board who created this PR mess.

 

Put the shovel down.

 

In closing, I'm sure you'll report back to the troops on FF who you've been "chatting" to over here.

 

The truth is, I really couldn't give a flying fuck!

 

No offence intended, like.

No offence taken although you should stop twisting my words into something they aren't. In addition, the only 'chat' I've had on FF today was to answer a plea to help with a can collection at the Motherwell game for the Davie Cooper Centre but hey-ho, just continue to make things up.

Wonder away.

 

I'm wondering when the truth in all of this murky tale will come to light?

 

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?

 

I'm wondering, as Mainflyer wonders, why, when you're in a deep hole of your own making that you're still going hard at it with the shovel making the bloody thing bigger?

I wasn't really wondering, I think it's pretty obvious who you are. I'll just ignore your sarcasm, even if it pleases your pals so much. There is no hole, deep or otherwise so I'm unclear how I could have made something that doesn't exist far less make it bigger.

This reminds me of an old Western I saw many years ago - so old it was in black and white - anyway, the town was under siege from the massed ranks of the Red Indians (Pawnee if I recall) and the town marshall (probably John Wayne??) get together a posse of local shopkeepers and assorted town businessmen to go out under cover of darkness and find out what the Pawnee tribe were up to.

 

This 'plg' visitor reminds me of that movie.

I wonder who this is.