RST AGM Tomorrow

[wabashcannonball 0]

The rst is damaged goods, history.

[maineflyer 0]

Frankie, I will PM you.

 

That's right, take it out of the public domain at all costs. The habits of a lifetime do not easily change and neither will the RST with these people running it.

 

In the words of the prophet, they still just don't get it.

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

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.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

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.

 

This is kind of my point. They have answers to all of that, and people that they question have answers to anything said back the way. Without being directly involved it is impossible to work out who did what, how and to what ends.

 

 

 

This all looks like a defence of MD, I appreciate that but it is really not the intention. I am trying to explain that there are two sides to every story and while FF is certainly the stomping ground of one side, other sites can be polarized against them. While everyone is intent on attacking/defending then days/weeks/months and years go by with the club getting absolutely nowhere and the support going backwards.

 

 

 

 

This whole tangent has come from a thread on FF that was started by a VB member who posted a hit and run list of 10 very loaded questions and refused to reply to any and all answers or returned questions. If answers were the goal then that would not have happened. The goal was pretty clearly to get rumours started without caring about the answers. It worked and there is a 'debate' raging now which is following well worn paths, but for those who actually want to know the story, there is nothing, literally nothing, by way of meanigful dialogue.

 

The questions may well all be perfectly valid, I dont know, but the fact they have been used as ammunition rather than as way to open debate means that they are worthless in any meaningful way. This is what has happened for years and will continue to happen for years to come.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

 

Acceptable as an explanation ? Sure.

Irregular ? Absolutely.

 

 

 

Is that not what I said? :robbo:

[boss 0]

I doubt he will mind this being posted as it ws said in open forum over there....

 

At the risk of being called a lickspittle, that sounds reasonable enough and if he has simply underwritten RST 'debts' and paid them over time, there is some irregularity but not for personal gain (the opposite, if anything).

 

I dont know his or the trusts financial information and I agree that it is probably highly irregular, but from the above it doesnt look like he took anything at all out of the coffers and seemingly paid money in instead.

 

Seems an incredible admission. He owed the Trust money for 2 years, from functions in 2008. �£30 was outstanding at 5/4/10 and no-one has yet admitted how much was outstanding at 5/4/09. Did he really have to wait until August this year to be told he still owed money? Normal people know when they owe money.

 

A financial gain was made (the notional interest on the debt outstanding) - it doesn't matter how many friendly solicitors try to state otherwise.

 

I note that none of this was disclosed in the Accounts for 2009 or for 2010. A board member owed a debt at the year end ("I have now repaid the debt") and it wasn't disclosed...

 

Why was the Treasurer not demanding this money was paid throughout that time? No wonder the finances are in a mess. �£10k loss = sleeping on the job.

 

I wonder whether this is related to the "bounced cheque" allegations that have been made elsewhere. Is it not illegal to write a cheque when, at the time you write it, you are aware there are insufficient funds in the bank? IIRC it is not a defence that there was some pious hope there would be funds by the time the cheque was cashed.

 

The RST bank account shouldn't be an overdraft that can be used for free credit for 2 years.

 

Duckponds, schmuckponds ... nothing to see here.

[Frankie 8,186]

This is kind of my point. They have answers to all of that, and people that they question have answers to anything said back the way. Without being directly involved it is impossible to work out who did what, how and to what ends.

 

This all looks like a defence of MD, I appreciate that but it is really not the intention. I am trying to explain that there are two sides to every story and while FF is certainly the stomping ground of one side, other sites can be polarized against them. While everyone is intent on attacking/defending then days/weeks/months and years go by with the club getting absolutely nowhere and the support going backwards.

 

This whole tangent has come from a thread on FF that was started by a VB member who posted a hit and run list of 10 very loaded questions and refused to reply to any and all answers or returned questions. If answers were the goal then that would not have happened. The goal was pretty clearly to get rumours started without caring about the answers. It worked and there is a 'debate' raging now which is following well worn paths, but for those who actually want to know the story, there is nothing, literally nothing, by way of meanigful dialogue.

 

The questions may well all be perfectly valid, I dont know, but the fact they have been used as ammunition rather than as way to open debate means that they are worthless in any meaningful way. This is what has happened for years and will continue to happen for years to come.

 

With respect, this forum and others were talking about this subject constructively before the list of questions you talk about was posted on FF. Indeed, the issue of money owed wasn't even highlighted as many people came to the conclusion board change was required.

 

Now, I don't doubt there are people who go beyond what I'd consider constructive criticism to create mischief. That list of questions is probably an example of that. However, would we have found out about the irregular finances without it? After all, the resigned secretary didn't feel comfortable enough to highlight it publicly and given the scorn poured on him yesterday and at the meeting by his fellow board members, I don't blame him.

 

Indeed, it seems any resigned board member is fair game for slurs, accusations and downright maliciousness when it comes to any slight criticisms they make of the organisation nowadays. If you read my article on Newsnow yesterday you'd see it was balanced, fair and reported only the facts. Not to create trouble for anyone but simply to show serious problems remain within the Trust.

 

In my opinion a small minority of the Trust board don't help solve these problems but actually increase them with their poor behaviour and hypocrisy when reacting to such criticism. These people shouldn't be excused but should answer for their unacceptable behaviour.

 

Do you think the Trust would be stronger with or without such people?

[maineflyer 0]

With all respect to recent posters, there's some danger hear that the need to be seen to act and debate in a "reasonable" way is eclipsing far more important issues. While there is no doubt some value in constructing a balanced appraisal of events, let's not forget that far more was actually achieved by asking those " loaded" questions than all the even-handedness seen here. The people who asked those questions already knew what was going on in the RST, just as they already know more than has so far come to light, and it was their actions that allowed some light to penetrate the sordid world of the RST - not the extensive reasonableness seen elsewhere.

 

This isn't finished yet, far from it, but if something worthwhile comes from this episode, it will be down to those who create change, not those who intellectualize it.

[Frankie 8,186]

MF:

 

I don't think the questions were that bad but the wording made it easy for the recipient to discredit the asker's intention as opposed to anything else. In many ways though, the financial issue is now not that important when one examines the bigger picture of culpability here anyway.

 

Right now the RST has failed; not just the current board but all of us who've spent time on it. However, the premise is still sound and the model ripe for development; especially at this moment in time, with GerSave in place and uncertainty surrounding the club's future.

 

The RST should be building upon this in a variety of ways - bringing on experienced talent onto the board, engaging with the wider support (online and offline) to improve relationships, conducting feasibility studies on membership schemes/ownership funds, working with the business community for expert advice, using their own website, board and forum to reach out beyond the usual places and make themselves more accessible than ever.

 

The crucial last year especially has seen none of that. Instead we have the usual faces on the board that have contributed to failure and bad press, the Trust refuse any dialogue with parties outwith FF and have yet to reach the offline supporter, no studies have been carried out into membership schemes, business relationships are minimal and their accessibility poor.

 

Now, not every board member is responsible for that and I know more than a few are working hard to change this. However, in my opinion, a small minority of the Trust board don't help solve these problems but actually increase them with their poor behaviour and hypocrisy when reacting to such any criticism - even the blandest and most constructive. These people shouldn't be excused but should answer for their unacceptable behaviour.

[maineflyer 0]

MF:

 

I don't think the questions were that bad but the wording made it easy for the recipient to discredit the asker's intention as opposed to anything else. In many ways though, the financial issue is now not that important when one examines the bigger picture of culpability here anyway.

 

Right now the RST has failed; not just the current board but all of us who've spent time on it. However, the premise is still sound and the model ripe for development; especially at this moment in time, with GerSave in place and uncertainty surrounding the club's future.

 

The RST should be building upon this in a variety of ways - bringing on experienced talent onto the board, engaging with the wider support (online and offline) to improve relationships, conducting feasibility studies on membership schemes/ownership funds, working with the business community for expert advice, using their own website, board and forum to reach out beyond the usual places and make themselves more accessible than ever.

 

The crucial last year especially has seen none of that. Instead we have the usual faces on the board that have contributed to failure and bad press, the Trust refuse any dialogue with parties outwith FF and have yet to reach the offline supporter, no studies have been carried out into membership schemes, business relationships are minimal and their accessibility poor.

 

Now, not every board member is responsible for that and I know more than a few are working hard to change this. However, in my opinion, a small minority of the Trust board don't help solve these problems but actually increase them with their poor behaviour and hypocrisy when reacting to such any criticism - even the blandest and most constructive. These people shouldn't be excused but should answer for their unacceptable behaviour.

 

My point is that continuing to describe and analyse the problem is a poor substitute for changing it. There's an unfortunate tendency sometimes to understate the importance of catalysing change and to see worth only in terms of style. The language used above to diminish the importance and consequence of the "loaded questions" was unnecessary and unfortunate. You may not feel they were best constructed but far more was achieved in the asking of them than by all the rest of the considered debaters put together.