RST AGM Tomorrow

[plgsarmy 111]

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.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

You think it is OK for someone to request �£2700 of services and pay it back over two years without making the situation clear in the organisation's accounts. Then only commenting when this information drifted out via other means.

 

To be clear, unlike Mark Dingwall who I did consider a decent chap before I seen another side of him, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately underhand financial cheating. However, others may not be so kind when they juxtapose this issue with the lies and slurs he spreads about others while being guilty of the very same himself.

 

And he certainly wouldn't be so gracious himself.

 

 

Again Frankie, it is not my place to defend him or anyone else and I certainly wouldnt try to sway opinion on something I know so little about.

 

Prima facie, and to an uninvolved party, his explanation looks reasonable. There is a huge difference between irregular and neffarious. If others have reason to doubt it then fine, I cant and wont disagree, I simply added an opinion (when I should probably have kept schtum) to his explanation.

[Frankie 8,182]

Again Frankie, it is not my place to defend him or anyone else and I certainly wouldnt try to sway opinion on something I know so little about.

 

Prima facie, and to an uninvolved party, his explanation looks reasonable. There is a huge difference between irregular and neffarious. If others have reason to doubt it then fine, I cant and wont disagree, I simply added an opinion (when I should probably have kept schtum) to his explanation.

 

Not at all - you're opinion is as valid as anyone else's and it would have merit when not positioned alongside the long list of indiscretions this guy has.

 

Some people will enjoy his personal discomfort over this. Not me, I'm just gutted for the Trust members, gutted for the decent board members and gutted for those of us who thought such an organisation could be taken seriously.

[Frankie 8,182]

Frankie, I will PM you.

 

Whilst I thank you for this, with respect I feel that if the Trust have something official to say on the matter, it should be for public consumption.

 

Nonetheless, if you have good reason to keep your thoughts private I'll respect your confidence.

[craig 5,199]

Sorry but if you "underwrite" something and are guaranteeing it you should be having to abide by the same payment terms as anyone else. i.e. those who also purchased tables would have had to have had those tables paid for by the time of the event or whenever invoiced thereafter - which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be two years later. And that person's statement that "my business wasnt thriving" should be an irrelevance - you shouldnt underwrite something if you dont have the money to do so when you should be called upon to make good on the obligation.

 

To put it another way... would the Trust have been so understanding if these tables had not been paid and the tables had been purchased by "Joe Blow" - very likely that the same generous payment terms would not have been granted.

 

I am only going on by what I am reading here but it IS irregular - if for no other reason than the fact that it was not public knowledge or acknowledged in the financials - it is effectively a related party transaction (or at least a Board transaction and) and should be acknowledged and highlighted in the financials.

 

It becomes even more irregular when it only enters the public domain through other means rather than the person or the RST.

 

And I have no bias in this as I still have no idea who it is that we are talking about....

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Not at all - you're opinion is as valid as anyone else's and it would have merit when not positioned alongside the long list of indiscretions this guy has.

 

Some people will enjoy his personal discomfort over this. Not me, I'm just gutted for the Trust members, gutted for the decent board members and gutted for those of us who thought such an organisation could be taken seriously.

 

Frankie, here is the thing...

 

 

listen to FF and the Trust and YOU have some history. Listen to them and Countless people have, infact, got history.

 

Now come over here and the opposite is said.

 

 

I think you probably know that anything I have heard about you or any of the other prior trust members, or splitters or whatever the term for the day is, has not been just blindly accepted and I have formed my own opinions on people based on my dealings with them.

 

To me, that can only ever work if it works all the time. I cant decide to take you at face value as a person and then decide to use your opinion to work out other people (I hope that makes sense).

 

 

What he has said tonight makes sense and while being irregular, doesnt really benefit him so it is hard to see what gain was in it for him if he was 'at it'. Now, that is me basing my opinion on my dealings with him, not on other peoples stories. If there is a long and validated history then i can see why it would be more than questionable.

 

Lets be brutally honest; from a neutrals point of view, all that is seen is mud being slung from side to side on a regular basis. In the face of that, and without the firsthand knowledge, all someone can do is treat each case as it arises because there have been countless times that something has been said, 'proven' and later 'disproven'.

 

 

 

This is where we have arrived at as a support and it is truly heartbreaking. I consider myself as reasonably intelligent but I know without a shadow of a doubt that all the shit from all sides has become so entangled now that there is virtually no chance of ever getting to the truth, the real truth, of any matter.

 

It is absolutely unquestionable that answers dont really matter in any of this and all that people want, on any side, is to damage the other side. In that environment nothing can ever change.

[Frankie 8,182]

Craig:

 

Again, I'm no financial/legal expert but that is exactly how I'd look at it. Obviously Mark Dingwall has had advice to the contrary but hopefully the Trust will clarify this and how exactly they feel this person's position is tenable going forward when added to his behaviour in other matters.

[craig 5,199]

You make a very valid point Frankie here...

 

Even maineflyer, who has been opposed to certain people and goings-on within the Trust, support the very notion of the Trust and what it originally set out to achieve.

 

However, even if the Trust were doing good things the perception now is one of "them and us". There seems to have been much barricading by the Trust which has resulted in fire-fighting.

 

I speak as someone who whoe-heartedly bought into the concept of potential fan ownership but also of one whereby having the potential for the fans to have proper input with the club at all levels.

 

Now, granted, the club have been partly to blame in some of this not being achieves, but the Trust, in my opinion, has done nothing in the last 2 or 3 years but lurch from one crisis to the next. Resignations, leaked documents, aspersions cast at each other, back-stabbing, favouritism allegations - the list is too endless to continue.

 

And, you stated that there is much apathy amongst the support.... that part I completely see. I bought into the concept and paid for my life membership. I bought into the concept and bought a 1 yr membership for 10 Gersnet members... I now see anything Trust related and think "what has gone wrong now", that thought quickly being followed by "who cares".

 

Apathy ? with the Trust lurching as it has been ? You betcha.

 

Disappointed that I feel this way ? Absolutely. I still believe in the concept - but I cannot right now believe in the people attempting to achieve it. If the Trust cant be united within itself - what chance does it stand in being united when dealing with the club ?

 

I still, rightly or wrongly, believe that the Trust has people who seem to be in it for personal gain, rather than the greater good of the fans and, ultimately, the club. Not all Trust Board members so I dont want to tarnish everyone with the same stick.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Sorry but if you "underwrite" something and are guaranteeing it you should be having to abide by the same payment terms as anyone else. i.e. those who also purchased tables would have had to have had those tables paid for by the time of the event or whenever invoiced thereafter - which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be two years later. And that person's statement that "my business wasnt thriving" should be an irrelevance - you shouldnt underwrite something if you dont have the money to do so when you should be called upon to make good on the obligation.

 

To put it another way... would the Trust have been so understanding if these tables had not been paid and the tables had been purchased by "Joe Blow" - very likely that the same generous payment terms would not have been granted.

 

I am only going on by what I am reading here but it IS irregular - if for no other reason than the fact that it was not public knowledge or acknowledged in the financials - it is effectively a related party transaction (or at least a Board transaction and) and should be acknowledged and highlighted in the financials.

 

It becomes even more irregular when it only enters the public domain through other means rather than the person or the RST.

 

And I have no bias in this as I still have no idea who it is that we are talking about....

 

And if it meant a function 'lost' substancial cash or even didnt happen, would it not make more sense to allow a little freedom to a man who obviously was going nowhere? Better not to recieve the cash at all than to get it over a period of time?

 

Anyway, I dont know enough to mount a defence, so I wont, I was merely saying that as a casual observer it looked irregular but acceptable as an explanation.

[Frankie 8,182]

Frankie, here is the thing...

 

 

listen to FF and the Trust and YOU have some history. Listen to them and Countless people have, infact, got history.

 

Now come over here and the opposite is said.

 

 

I think you probably know that anything I have heard about you or any of the other prior trust members, or splitters or whatever the term for the day is, has not been just blindly accepted and I have formed my own opinions on people based on my dealings with them.

 

To me, that can only ever work if it works all the time. I cant decide to take you at face value as a person and then decide to use your opinion to work out other people (I hope that makes sense).

 

 

What he has said tonight makes sense and while being irregular, doesnt really benefit him so it is hard to see what gain was in it for him if he was 'at it'. Now, that is me basing my opinion on my dealings with him, not on other peoples stories. If there is a long and validated history then i can see why it would be more than questionable.

 

Lets be brutally honest; from a neutrals point of view, all that is seen is mud being slung from side to side on a regular basis. In the face of that, and without the firsthand knowledge, all someone can do is treat each case as it arises because there have been countless times that something has been said, 'proven' and later 'disproven'.

 

 

 

This is where we have arrived at as a support and it is truly heartbreaking. I consider myself as reasonably intelligent but I know without a shadow of a doubt that all the shit from all sides has become so entangled now that there is virtually no chance of ever getting to the truth, the real truth, of any matter.

 

It is absolutely unquestionable that answers dont really matter in any of this and all that people want, on any side, is to damage the other side. In that environment nothing can ever change.

 

Mate,

 

I don't disagree with much of that but this example is just another in a list of unprofessional behaviour from this one person.

 

I'm as unhappy as you at the status quo. There is no doubt some people enjoy this sad war more than actually finding solutions. However, that doesn't excuse clear breaches of trust (not necessarily always for personal gain) in an organisation where trust is paramount given its voluntary nature.

 

Accepting services and not paying for them for over two years is a breach of trust. Attending meetings with the club and posting the minutes on your own personal forum before divulging to other board members is a breach of trust. Posting continual lies and slurs about former colleagues to deflect from such behaviour is a breach of trust.

 

The Trust simply cannot allow themselves to be associated with such ongoing problems. Doesn't matter where you post or who you believe, that conclusion is inevitable.