RST AGM Tomorrow

[maineflyer 0]

not at all. That means that the trust 'lost' the interest. He didnt gain the interest because he didnt take cash out, just underwrote debt. ergo, he didnt gain. If he had borrowed money off them and paid it back slowly, he would have gained. He didnt take anything but guaranteed to pay money in on behalf of others.

 

 

If you said the trust lost you would be right. saying he 'gained' is plainly wrong.

 

You're being deliberately obtuse. Of course he gained from the deceit ... either by employing the money himself for the time he had it ... or by the saving interest on money he would otherwise have had to borrow over that time. Stop trying to defend the indefensible - I think you're at it my friend.

[Frankie 8,200]

Ahh, know him and like him. Cant believe I missed that though. Might have been drunk.

 

I might have been as well as he has kindly explained what happened for me:

 

Frankie again I think that's a distortion of what actually happened and the blame imho for what happened actually lay elsewhere beyond MD. It was raised at a further RST meeting and the point was taken onboard by the Chair.

 

It was a reflection of another aspect of things and those collectively at the meeting share some blame but it was a good week after the meeting. I don't think it was put forward for FF for any gain for FF or MD (what would it be) but it did show a lack of respect to other board members.

 

I had remembered the debate he had with MD and recalled his annoyance at the time as well as the hypocrisy shown by the person(s) responsible given what they continue to allege about others.

 

I apologise if I got the situation wrong but the double standards and unprofessionalism seems clear enough to me once more.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Since these forums are all about expressing opinion, I'd like to express my opinion that Northampton Loyalist is playing a very dangerous game, proposing as he does to promote fair-mindedness while simultaneously massaging certain facts to suit what obviously nothing more fair-minded than his own inherent bias. Personally, I find something fundamentally suspicious when people suppress opinion in favourite of self-image, only to reveal themselves in what they don't say. I believe those is a game of drawing the sting of reasonable accusation by asserting an apparently even more reasonable "faults on both sides". Something doesn't quite add up, despite the amount of effort employed.

 

Of course I'm just an old cynic, eh?

 

You can suggest whatever you like.

 

YOU tell me how he gained. He didnt take money and put it in the bank, therefore there was no money from the trust in his bank to gain interest. The trust lost the interest due to the time it was not in their account, absolutely, but how you or anyone can suggest that he gained interest on money that was not in his account is beyond me.

 

You like these little innuendo games, dont you?

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

You're being deliberately obtuse. Of course he gained from the deceit ... either by employing the money himself for the time he had it ... or by the saving interest on money he would otherwise have had to borrow over that time. Stop trying to defend the indefensible - I think you're at it my friend.

 

Of course. I dont agree with you, therefore I am at it. fair enough entirely. Not at all anything to do with why the support is fucked. Well done.

[maineflyer 0]

not at all. That means that the trust 'lost' the interest. He didnt gain the interest because he didnt take cash out, just underwrote debt. ergo, he didnt gain. If he had borrowed money off them and paid it back slowly, he would have gained. He didnt take anything but guaranteed to pay money in on behalf of others.

 

 

If you said the trust lost you would be right. saying he 'gained' is plainly wrong.

 

You can suggest whatever you like.

 

YOU tell me how he gained. He didnt take money and put it in the bank, therefore there was no money from the trust in his bank to gain interest. The trust lost the interest due to the time it was not in their account, absolutely, but how you or anyone can suggest that he gained interest on money that was not in his account is beyond me.

 

You like these little innuendo games, dont you?

Post 121. No innuendo involved, I'm stating openly that I believe you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of this forum.

[Frankie 8,200]

Guys, let's please avoid personal fall outs.

 

We're all adults here and we can surely disagree respectfully. Let's not stoop to the levels of others.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Post 121. No innuendo involved, I'm stating openly that I believe you're trying to pull the wool over the eyes of this forum.

 

Fair enough.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Sorry but "a little freedom" should not amount to two years. Even if it did, the appropriate thing to do is highlight it in the financial statements. That way all is above board and no-one could have any complaints. It is a Board transaction and a board member having a liability to the organisation is potentially conflicted interest.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess but the reality is that if a board members liability is two years in length it should be questioned as to recoverability from the auditors and should also be considered for disclosure in the financial statements.

 

I stated that the persons "business not thriving" is irrelevant. I would also contend that "slowness of getting payments in for the table" is irrelevant too. The very nature of "underwrting" a transaction means you are guaranteeing it. How and when everyone sat at that table pays you is irrelevant - you have underwritten it so you are bound to the obligation regardless.

 

Whomever this was, I am assuming MD but I still am not sure, if they were going to need more time to get the cash together then they should have informed the Board. If this was done then the Board should also have probably minuted the action they took (allowing an extended payment period) with reference to the transaction. Any wrongdoing would therefore be easily disproved by releasing the pertinent portion of the board minutes - or have someone verify said minutes).

 

It is easy for you to say "a man was going nowhere" but this same man said his "business wasnt thriving" and that was a justification for the time taken to repay the amount due. Who is to say that his business wouldnt have folded and he simply wouldnt have had the money to repay ?

 

This actually suggests a failing not just on the part of the person underwriting the tables but also on the board's part. One has to assume that the knew the cash wouldnt be paid by the time of the event. It now seems that the cash was returned a considerable time later - which also suggests that the liability was very much a "gentleman's agreement". Is that really the way to do business ?

 

Dont get me wrong, I dont see that this person made any financial gain whatsoever and, in fact, seems to have suffered grief over it, but the fact remains that it only emerges through other channels rather than first hand.

 

Acceptable as an explanation ? Sure.

Irregular ? Absolutely.

 

 

MF, is he trying to pull the wool over your eyes? He says EXACTLY what I do, albeit in a far more extensive and comprehensive manner.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

You know what MF, dont bother replying. You are not now and never have been interested in debate. Anyone that goes against your thoughts is 'at it' and anyone not flying two footed into your targets is plainly against you. You are clearly an intelligent man, but you are equally as clearly incapable of seeing out of that tunnelled vision.

 

 

Yours

[boss 0]

not at all. That means that the trust 'lost' the interest. He didnt gain the interest because he didnt take cash out, just underwrote debt. ergo, he didnt gain. If he had borrowed money off them and paid it back slowly, he would have gained. He didnt take anything but guaranteed to pay money in on behalf of others.

 

If you said the trust lost you would be right. saying he 'gained' is plainly wrong.

 

You don't really want to understand the concept of 'notional interest', do you?

 

If you did, you wouldn't still be sticking up for the Cheque Bouncer.