plgsarmy

The Trust will make a statement as soon as they've decided what the truth is .... and found a way to get round it.

 

You can almost hear the gears grinding from here but it's the smoke coming from the failed treasurer that stings the conscience. Why is she here at all? Is this her allocated beat, her section of the wall to defend? The problem for the implicated is that there's really no alternative to stubborn defence - admit any weakness and the roof caves in - offer cogent debate and ... well the roof falls in there too. Can't even slink away quietly because tat probably leads to rejection by current accomplices, followed by threats to theerson and ridicule if common practice prevails.

The problem is Maineflyer is that people like you aren't interested in the truth, all you live for is to discredit other people. Your petty name calling is water off a duck's back to me. 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.

Interesting. http://www.rangersmedia.co.uk/homepage/index.php/component/content/article/41-finances/644-the-bank-of-rst-get-your-interest-free-loan-here-.html

Interesting is one way of describing it. Here's another two - sad and pathetic.

Like I say, if the RST make an official statement then any confusion can be put to rest.

 

I assume the Trust will be informing their members of this farce?

We will be making a statement.

The statement from MD suggests the issue begun in 2008 and he only paid any money he owed off in August this year. As such, while the details may not explain this in depth, the '2 year' period is not made up - more an understandable generalisation from the existing information.

 

The quicker the Trust make an official statement on the matter the better so people don't get confused and the finer detail can be used to come to a fair conclusion for all.

 

Frankie, he thought it was paid off but there was still �£30 outstanding in August which he subsequently paid when it was brought to his attention.

It was, though, a guarantee - MD publicly stated it was.

And it was paid off, the majority a few months later rather than this '2 year' period that people have made up.

A previous incumbent's lack of foresight is does not provide the current (though I appreciate you have resigned now) incumbent with plausible deniability.

 

You cant simply say "the previous person set up the account so I just kept things the same" - that would be akin to saying "the previous guy invested in AIG so I just kept it in there even when I knew that the shit was hitting the fan".

 

Now, to be fair, the bank savings interest rates are hardly staggering these days so not much interest will be lost. Not a big deal financially in my eyes.

Craig, you are correct and perhaps I let snidey and petty comments that I read elsewhere get to me. In answer to your question in the previous thread, yes we do have an interest bearing account but we use that for Gersave.

Doesnt matter. The question of interest would be applied to personal gain, not by the Trust, but by the person who received, effectively, an interest free loan for two years.

 

Dont get hung up on the Trust's position in this as it isnt ALL about the Trust.

 

Surely, at the least, the Trust should have an interest bearing account. Please tell me that they do ??

 

BD, boss, are board members required to disclose preferential loans on their tax returns ? Been a long time since I did UK tax but my very hazy recollection was that a corporate director receiving a loan on preferential rates should be paying imputed tax on that or, at least, disclose it to the revenue. Not sure if board members of a Trust are required to do so and, to be fair and clear, this may not be the case. I am happy to stand corrected.

Craig, I understand you are not aware of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this. I'm not at liberty to divulge information on a public forum until our members have been informed. However, to be clear, this was not a loan, interest free or otherwise. Knowing the circumstances, our auditors were very clear about that.

Perhaps you're right. The board's least able member is probably so immersed in her own inadequacies and cultivating pointless defiance that asking her would be an utter waste of time ... like expecting her to exhibit competence and integrity on behalf of the RST membership.

 

You're utterly sunk, aren't you? Red handed and nowhere left to hide comes to mind.

 

And you know the best bit ... there's so much more still to emerge and the least able member is centre stage.

Is that right? Bring it on. I have absolutely nothing to hide.

If my FD came to me and said we didn't earn interest on our cash balances, I'd be looking for a new FD. What was your excuse? Why were you holding funds in a current account?

Maybe you should ask the former, former treasurer rather than the Board's least able member.

After boss's post I have changed my mind. There IS financial gain - I hadnt considered the bank interest aspect.

We don't earn any interest on our current account.

I'd like to hear what PLG and the rest of the Trust board have to say officially on this matter.

Frankie, I will PM you.

By proxy, I put forward the suggestion about an RST forum. Dissapointed about their answer and it goes to show they're not the right people to engage the fans although the board member I emailed about a forum does support it.

shoredbear, it wasn't ruled out and it will be up to the team I'm heading up to decide whether we have it. The comment re Facebook was that at the Supporters Direct Conference, many of the other Trusts were using Facebook rather than a forum. The main issue is moderation but it isn't insurmountable.

I dont want to have a private look at it, I want it published on the website as a testiment to all the good work KP and others put in, to show that the Trust can produce good quality work, and to stimulate debate on the issue. It could certainly be published with some appropriate notes to remind the reader of the context in which it was written.

 

The nudge nudge wink wink comment was in relation to all the "unnamed person", "we can all guess who" "make your own mind up" comments that were issued from the top table when discussing this. I stand by my disgust at the way the membership was treated in a private meeting by some of the board, who should not be hiding behind such wording when addressing the people they represent. The way it was finally discussed was the way it should have been discussed from the start. It appears some (not you) dont get this "representation" thing.

Okay I get what you mean now. I'll get it discussed at our next Board meeting about the document being published, I think there will be mixed views just in case 'you know who' comes back to the table. Sorry if you feel members were treated badly. The truth is that we have never been told by the third party who their client is. The Sunday Herald says it was Jim McColl and I think we all believe that to be the case but we just can't come out and say it definitely was him. I'll certainly pass on your comments but I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to treat members badly.

Thanks to BD for a fuller round-up than I could either remember or had time for, and 1 of the points he mentioned that i'd forgotten about was a point I raised myself!!

 

I was deeply disappointed with the facebook answer.

I was deeply disappointed that Alan Harris's statement was not read out, although obviously he was partly to blame for that himself by leaving when his initial attempt to make his statement was denied, instead of waiting for AOB.

 

I was also disappointed to note that there is a lack of desire to publish and create debate on their work on the blueprint they were asked to create for the "Mr Big". I understand some of this was leaked to the press when it was supposed to be confidential, but just to shelf it and say that it will keep in case some other "Mr Big" comes along is poor showing IMO. This should have been published on their website and perhaps it might have created some debate. We had heard that they were working on it for long enough, but for the membership to be denied the chance to read and discuss it is wrong.

 

Yes, we have to trust the board to do the right thing, and they cant tell the memebrship everything, but they cannot then wonder why Rangers fans, members and non-members alike, think they have done nothing all year when all their work goes into the confidential drawer, not to be discussed or shared with even their own members at their own AGM. The board's secrecy and playing with words with their own membership in a private meeting with a nudge nudge wink wink was pathetic.

 

It seems that as long as they support some good charities and get some soundbites on tv and radio, all is well.

 

But all is not well.

TB, KP had the document with him and said that anyone at the meeting could have a look at it. I'm not sure if anyone asked to see it. I'm not sure of the usefulness of publishing that particular document on the website as it was written on the basis that the funding was being underwritten and was very specific to this particular case. I'm afraid I don't understand the 'nudge nudge wink wink' comment but perhaps we could speak about that.

No threads about the AGM on FF or RM either. Surely not an indication that the stock of the RST has fallen to a level where they are not even talked about on any of the main forums anymore!

 

As for the AGM, a very brief summary would be;

 

35 in attendance.

Loss of �£10K in the year.

Membership income down.

Report done for a "high net worth" but unnamed investor that got leaked and the investor ran away.

Fundaraising events through the year lost money instead of raised money.

Loads of changes in the board again, with 8 new/re-elected board members.

Chairman resigned, personal/work commitments.

Secretary resigned, tried to make statement, was told not to.

Treasurer resigned, personal/work commitments.

 

It wasnt a very good year, and even the few of us left that support the concept of the vehicle of a Supporters Trust cannot hide or "spin" the fact that it is not looking good at the moment.

 

Hopefully, the new guys coming into it, coupled with the few good guys/gals already there, can start to make the necessary changes to take the Trust forward, but they have a long road ahead.

TB, a reasonable account but a couple of points to clarify. I disagree about the 'loads of changes in the Board again' comment. One third of the Board are required to stand down every year and seek re-election if they wish. We had two cooptees that were also seeking election. We only had one new person apply to join the Board and he was elected.

As has been pointed out, the Chairman indicated his intention to step down but it isn't clear whether or not he will remain on the Board. Both the Secretary and the Treasurer (me) have only stepped down from their positions but have not resigned from the Board. WE now have a CA on the board and it makes much more sense for her to be treasurer.

The Secretary was told that the questions were only about the Secretary's and Treasurer's reports and that he could speak later. He chose not to, why I don't know.

At Muiravonside Cemetery (upper area) on the 12th September at 2pm there will be a dedication ceremony for the Margaret Ferguson Memorial bench conducted by the Rev. Louise McClements of Muiravonside Parish Church.

 

Muiravonside Cemetery, Maddiston Road, Whitecross, EH49 6LN

 

Anyone is welcome to attend and in the wishes of Margarets family - we will remember Margaret with happiness.

Went along to this today. A very fitting and moving tribute.

This is a fantastic idea and, although maineflyer and I have had our differences in other threads, his words here are absolutely superb and say everything that most of us would want to say. How will the money be collected?

It's not actually subtle at all and you're not nearly as smart or as confident as you'd like us to believe. Anyway, I've had enough of this now.

Oh well, at least that's a result.

Have you managed to fill the current board vacancy(s)?

I think there may be more places to fill after the AGM.

It just shows you how bad the RST is that every time they are mentioned(doesn't matter where or what board except FF), you will get a good number of people slagging it off.

 

The worse thing the RST could have ever done was align itself with �£�£. I'll admit at the time it probably was a good idea as �£�£ was the biggest site etc. BUT as soon as other boards came up and got bigger they should have also moved over to them OR just make their very own forum (which would have been the best idea).

 

The problem is that projects like this book where it could be the best thing ever and have absolutely no problems whatsoever will be tarnished because the RST are in on it. That just shows to me how bad it really is regarding the RST.

Craig, the original founders of the Trust all met via FF and the owner of the site was invited onto the Board I would presume to represent the online community. It's natural that there is a relationship there. I have tried in the last year to ensure that our members are made aware of anything first by using out e-mail service and putting things on our own site first. However, sometines things slip. We have a massive task ahead of us to show the Rangers support that we are a credible organisation. Most of us recognise that.

The RST as it presently stands is a dead duck due to low membership numbers a largely apathetic support but by far the worst accusation weak leadership by certain individuals who put personal gain ahead of the RST's .

 

What happened a few years ago when the last board were ousted in what could be compared to the night of the long knives was a disgrace , Stalin wouldn't have run Russia the way this lot went about their business , committee's to oversee other board members , I know power corrupts but never in such a short space of time did so few get so paranoid so quickly .

 

 

The irony is that this present lot are doing the same things , certain board member's with the best of intentions ( I fully accept that ) worked away behind the scenes and without everyone's knowledge in the best interest's of the club , but the piont is you cant have it both ways , if you live by the sword then you must fall the same way.

 

Until as Maineflyer suggests there is open elections and this nonesense of coopting friends onto the board ends , the RST is going no where and the membership will continual to dwindle .

 

As a life member I am firmly commited to the aims and objectives of a properly run RST . this however isn't it , certain individuals tarnish it by their presence , this may not be a popular opinion but it is widely held .

 

The previous stratedgy of slaughtering Murray never worked as the vast majority of normal fans outside of internet land saw this as an attack on Rangers and it was always doomed to failure , the Radio and press in gerneral lapped it up , however some inside the RST do see a different way forward and perhaps in the full ness of time a new better RST can appear that has mass appeal , however for that to happen the interests of the club must come first , and unfortunately that will never happen .

 

Finally opinions of fans on internet forums are by and large worthless as we are in a tiny minority , until the wider support and in fact the club can be convinced of the worth while value of the RST in the long term , nothing will change .

 

As wabashcannonball stated nearly a year ago and though it sticks like a knife in my heart to write it , Murray is still the only game in town .

I agree with some of what you say. However, once again we have talk of people being ousted when that simply wasn't the case. I've said before, I think it was more down to a misunderstanding of something that was proposed at a meeting they weren't even at. We all want to move on but if this keeps coming up then I will always give my version of events.

I also never understand the personal gain thing. Being on the Board has cost me a fortune in terms of money and time. All I want is the best for the Club I love and I firmly believe in fan ownership and I do this willingly but personal gain? I wish.

Open elections? We've struggled since day one to get people to come forward. We've never required a 'competitive' election as we've simply never had more candidates than places available. Lots of people who have been approached because they have the skills required have said they simply don't have the time to get involved. As for co-opting friends, of the last 3 people to be co-opted one is a Chartered Accountant, the other two were proposed by me after I contacted one of them and the other contacted me. I didn't know them and they were not my friends but I felt they both had something to offer and I haven't been disappointed.

I think we have a huge task to get more supporters on board. Hopefully, at our AGM on 19th September we will be able to share our ideas.

But not, apparently, the only show in town, of which there have been several.

Play it again, Sam. You know, that line was never in the movie but people keep quoting it. Hope that's not too subtle for you maineflyer.

as a lifetime member I cannot tell you the last time I recieved either a text or e-mail .

 

We don't have a mobile number for you on record. In addition, we had a tiscali e-mail address which I've now changed to your hotmail one.

David Edgar said at last year's AGM that the items were purchased by the ex-board member in question in good faith. I am unsure whether this is the view of the whole board, but perhaps if this was added to the minute, it would clarify the situation?

 

My recollection was that a majority (if not all) of the pieces that were bought from the one company that was already under investigation.

 

The way that the minute is written certainly is open to interpretation as it suggests that the items were purchased from a wide range of suppliers and only one was known, but this was not what I took from the meeting.

I don't think anyone who knows S would seriously believe that he did not purchase them in good faith. I spoke to him at the time and confirmed that to him. It's a pity people still feel the need to bring these things up but I can't sit and read untruths and exaggerations and stay quiet.

This is anything but nonesense , and to deny it as Maineflyer has said is just silly , it's public record and also RST minuted .

Here's what was minuted. Not quite the same as trying to discredit a former Board member and being unable to follow up 'accusations' which weren't made in the first place.

CS remarked that there was a small deficit this year (�£149) compared to a profit of �£4K last

year. This was due to the Trust�s annual dinner for 2009 being held after the business year

end date and the need to write off �£3,000 in auction prizes.

A member (***** *****) asked why the auction prizes had been written off. MD explained

that the items were handed over to the current Board after last year�s resignations but upon

investigation there appeared to be solid grounds for believing that the vast majority of the

framed football shirts and photographs ostensibly signed by famous players were fakes. The

Trust had immediately contacted the relevant authorities when the issue first came to light.

When contacted the former RST board member responsible for the stock could only recall the

name of one purchaser. We await approval of the authorities before disposing of the items

but this depends upon the conclusion of an ongoing fraud investigation and legal

proceedings.