RST AGM Tomorrow

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

Not so.

 

He underwrote it, therefore guaranteeing it. As I said last night, this means he should have paid it by the time of the event. The fact that he didnt has more than one implication.

 

• The Trust lost out on bank interest because the money wasnt in their account
  
• He DID gain, as boss says, because if he had the money to pay it at the time then it would have left his account and he would, from that point on, have a lower bank balance resulting in lower bank interest
  
• If he had no/little money, as he seems to be alleging "my business wasnt thriving" then he actually gained MORE - because he underwrote it and should have paid at the time of the event he gained more because otherwise he would have had to take a short-term loan out and you can guarantee that the interest rates on those are higher than savings rates.
  

 

Boss is right. There IS personal financial gain, albeit notional.

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

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

[craig 5,199]

yes Boss. You are right. there are no two sides to the story, there is no give and take. We have a cut and dried one way street where one man is fucking everything up and should be put out to pasture. Better? bye now.

 

In all of this everyone is entitled to their opinion, as is the person in question. Surely someone, somewhere within the Trust should have thought "hmmmm, this is something we should have cleared up and/or out in the open". It is effectively a loan to a board member from the Trust (who are funded by the members, no ?). There is a fiduciary duty to highlight these occurrences because they can be seen as conflicted interests.

 

I am not overly bothered, to be honest, about what did or did not happen in this instance.

 

What DOES concern me is that this individual seems to have been at the centre (or involved) in everything that has been bad about the RST in the last couple of years. Now, before chewing me out, it may or may notbe of his owndoing - but when the perception is there it is irrelevant if you have been an innocent by-stander or not.

 

The reality is that the Trust is headed nowhere fast and the perception (which DOES count) is that he is one of the bad apples.

 

If everyone really is in all of this for the benefit of the club, and the club alone, then in the club's best interests this person should step down.

 

Guilt or innocence really plays little part in it when the person's continued participation is splitting the support even more than the opinion on the pros and cons of Kris Boyd.

 

He should step down. I dont think he, or the Trust, have any choice in that matter any more - his position is untenable - even if it was unintended that he took 2 years to pay back the loan, the reality is that it happened and a cloud will always remain over his head because of it.

 

It is also very unsavoury to see past and present board members casting aspersions at each other. Defend yourself yes. Defend yourself by aggressive mud-slinging in retaliation ? That should be left for the Tims.

 

In this thread Frankie posted some of the accusations about previous board members but rather than start throwing accusations back he merely said each of those accusations were malicious lies.

 

Defending yourself is one thing. Deflection with accusation is another. Very unsavoury and also very unbecoming of a representative of the RST.

[Super_Ally 0]

In all of this everyone is entitled to their opinion, as is the person in question. Surely someone, somewhere within the Trust should have thought "hmmmm, this is something we should have cleared up and/or out in the open". It is effectively a loan to a board member from the Trust (who are funded by the members, no ?). There is a fiduciary duty to highlight these occurrences because they can be seen as conflicted interests.

 

I am not overly bothered, to be honest, about what did or did not happen in this instance.

 

What DOES concern me is that this individual seems to have been at the centre (or involved) in everything that has been bad about the RST in the last couple of years. Now, before chewing me out, it may or may notbe of his owndoing - but when the perception is there it is irrelevant if you have been an innocent by-stander or not.

 

The reality is that the Trust is headed nowhere fast and the perception (which DOES count) is that he is one of the bad apples.

 

If everyone really is in all of this for the benefit of the club, and the club alone, then in the club's best interests this person should step down.

 

Guilt or innocence really plays little part in it when the person's continued participation is splitting the support even more than the opinion on the pros and cons of Kris Boyd.

 

He should step down. I dont think he, or the Trust, have any choice in that matter any more - his position is untenable - even if it was unintended that he took 2 years to pay back the loan, the reality is that it happened and a cloud will always remain over his head because of it.

 

It is also very unsavoury to see past and present board members casting aspersions at each other. Defend yourself yes. Defend yourself by aggressive mud-slinging in retaliation ? That should be left for the Tims.

 

In this thread Frankie posted some of the accusations about previous board members but rather than start throwing accusations back he merely said each of those accusations were malicious lies.

 

Defending yourself is one thing. Deflection with accusation is another. Very unsavoury and also very unbecoming of a representative of the RST.

 

I've still yet to see anyone tackle a major point you highlight there.

 

IF you say you are in it for the good of the club, but your mere presence within the RST board is highly damaging to the RST and any chance of advancement, attracting new members and uniting the support, why then would you not take a back seat? Unless you are merely in it for personal gain (of whatever nature).

[plgsarmy 111]

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.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The irony is all but lost, Rangers Supporters Trust.

[maineflyer 0]

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

 

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?

[rbr 1,247]

This situation is getting worse the more information comes out

[plgsarmy 111]

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.

[rbr 1,247]

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

 

Sorry but that's like politicians blaming the previous regime for all the countries woes .... your better than that