RST AGM Tomorrow

[Frankie 8,199]

MF:

 

I think CanadianBacon posted about this joint action on RM earlier. My reply to him was as follows:

 

As much as most people may disagree with the moral irregularities of the Trust accounts and associated previously unpaid debts, the Trust have had them audited independently as well as apparently obtained an independent legal opinion which suggests there was no wrong doing in a criminal sense.

 

Before anyone takes any action to challenge that, I'd recommend waiting for the official Trust minutes on the AGM as well as any official comment surrounding the accounting farce. First and foremost it should be the Trust membership raising any concerns (I'm not a member) though I would agree if they remain unhappy with any explanation SD and the FSA would be the first port of call for them.

 

Generally I'd suggest the concerns surrounding the Trust are not criminal but certainly valid issues whereby a minority of board members lack the moral authority to represent anyone. That is the pressure currently on the organisation and it is a difficult challenge of which many Rangers fans will be interested in how they address it.

[Frankie 8,199]

Subsequent to that reply, a few people have suggested rejoining the RST as members to lobby for change may be a more effective route. Again, this is my reply to that:

 

It is easy to complain from the outside but more difficult to change it from such a position. As such, joining and changing from within does make sense. However, by the same token, I'm well aware of how difficult it is to influence change - even from a position on the board, never mind as ordinary members who are rarely consulted.

 

Then there is the issue of the �£10 joining fee when financial irregularities are being found. Further, the organisation has just reported a �£10,000 loss which makes any individual investment into the Trust one to be weighed up very carefully indeed.

 

Generally though, if a number of people unhappy with the status quo were to lobby together for change as new members, then that would possibly be more successful than doing so as non-members. It may also call the bluff of some RST board members who think the current criticism is personality based as opposed to genuine concern for representation.

 

I think there is scope for change within the Trust and the Assembly to make them constitutionally sound and viable models for the support to get their teeth into.

 

To that end, I've personally tried to be more active with the Assembly which has worked to a small degree. Perhaps the same could work with the Trust but, despite what they say publicly, they will not engage with non-members to any degree; especially ones they have personal issues with.

 

Obviously their obligations would change if I were a member so perhaps I need to put my money where my mouth is. I'll give that some serious thought.

[bmck 117]

To further say i am happy with the tust covering it up is absurd, i have said no such thing and accept fully that it is highly irregular.

 

Then why have you (successfully) tried to shift the debate from whether it's a professional way to run anything (an area where the RST's position is irrecoverable) to whether this person financially gained from it (where it's less clear)? While everyone's bickering over the last point, the infinitely more important point - to anyone who actually cares about the RST and not about the soap opera that underpins it - is the first.

[Bluedell 5,367]

MF:

 

I think CanadianBacon posted about this joint action on RM earlier. My reply to him was as follows:

 

As much as most people may disagree with the moral irregularities of the Trust accounts and associated previously unpaid debts, the Trust have had them audited independently as well as apparently obtained an independent legal opinion which suggests there was no wrong doing in a criminal sense.

 

Before anyone takes any action to challenge that, I'd recommend waiting for the official Trust minutes on the AGM as well as any official comment surrounding the accounting farce. First and foremost it should be the Trust membership raising any concerns (I'm not a member) though I would agree if they remain unhappy with any explanation SD and the FSA would be the first port of call for them.

 

Generally I'd suggest the concerns surrounding the Trust are not criminal but certainly valid issues whereby a minority of board members lack the moral authority to represent anyone. That is the pressure currently on the organisation and it is a difficult challenge of which many Rangers fans will be interested in how they address it.

 

 

There will not be anything in the minutes as it was not discussed, presumably because Alan Harris was prevented from raising it, at what could be considered to be the appropriate time.

[maineflyer 0]

Subsequent to that reply, a few people have suggested rejoining the RST as members to lobby for change may be a more effective route. Again, this is my reply to that:

 

It is easy to complain from the outside but more difficult to change it from such a position. As such, joining and changing from within does make sense. However, by the same token, I'm well aware of how difficult it is to influence change - even from a position on the board, never mind as ordinary members who are rarely consulted.

 

Then there is the issue of the �£10 joining fee when financial irregularities are being found. Further, the organisation has just reported a �£10,000 loss which makes any individual investment into the Trust one to be weighed up very carefully indeed.

 

Generally though, if a number of people unhappy with the status quo were to lobby together for change as new members, then that would possibly be more successful than doing so as non-members. It may also call the bluff of some RST board members who think the current criticism is personality based as opposed to genuine concern for representation.

 

I think there is scope for change within the Trust and the Assembly to make them constitutionally sound and viable models for the support to get their teeth into.

 

To that end, I've personally tried to be more active with the Assembly which has worked to a small degree. Perhaps the same could work with the Trust but, despite what they say publicly, they will not engage with non-members to any degree; especially ones they have personal issues with.

 

Obviously their obligations would change if I were a member so perhaps I need to put my money where my mouth is. I'll give that some serious thought.

 

I have to say my instincts were the same as yours regarding the proposal to investigate options for reporting breaches of regulations. However, the benefit of a single voice, demonstrating as it would the desire to work together, would lie primarily in gathering support and therefore influence behind opposition to the unmoving obstacle. I'd advocate further dialogue with the other sites and that you might want to consider coordinating or indeed leading it - this would be acceptable to all concerned.

[maineflyer 0]

The alternative (the third way) of course is to ignore the RST and solve the problem by setting up the Independent RST. It would certainly polarize things for a spell but it would deliver a clear choice and it would provide a means of reaching a conclusion sonic membership would make one side or the other completely unsustainable, particularly if the good guys could successfully engage with the club, which we could.

[Frankie 8,199]

There will not be anything in the minutes as it was not discussed, presumably because Alan Harris was prevented from raising it, at what could be considered to be the appropriate time.

 

Mainly mentioned the minutes as a way to obtain balance on their opinion to other matters within the AGM.

 

Should Alan Harris wish to comment, then he should still be able to do so; perhaps in conjunction with an official statement from the Trust on the financial irregularities.

 

Surely the members will be made aware of this issue after the fact?

[wabashcannonball 0]

17 pages and still the obvious is ignored, there is no unity there is no will by the vast majority for unity, the apathy of past years and failed ventures are testament to that.....despite good intentions and fine words nothing will ever change, most bears will settle for their Saturday/Sunday/midweek fix....and get on with the rest of their lifes.

[maineflyer 0]

17 pages and still the obvious is ignored, there is no unity there is no will by the vast majority for unity, the apathy of past years and failed ventures are testament to that.....despite good intentions and fine words nothing will ever change, most bears will settle for their Saturday/Sunday/midweek fix....and get on with the rest of their lifes.

 

Unless you present them with something genuinely relevant and genuinely better.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Unless you present them with something genuinely relevant and genuinely better.

 

Like I said, unity is a dream to far.