The financial affairs of the RST

[wabashcannonball 0]

What surprises me more is that no one appears to be interested in what the OP is alleging, again, is he alleging criminal actions by parties, why haven't SD taken any action as the OP has stated they are fully in agreement with his actions.

 

I will say it again as I said at the start of this fiasco, the Club should forthwith suspend the rst from all and any business that uses the club name or its associations, until this matter is resolved one way or another.

 

Stop giving the mhanks laff time.

[Frankie 8,200]

What surprises me more is that no one appears to be interested in what the OP is alleging, again, is he alleging criminal actions by parties, why haven't SD taken any action as the OP has stated they are fully in agreement with his actions.

 

I will say it again as I said at the start of this fiasco, the Club should forthwith suspend the rst from all and any business that uses the club name or its associations, until this matter is resolved one way or another.

 

Stop giving the mhanks laff time.

 

I'm not a legal or financial expert so I've no idea if anything criminal has occurred. I doubt it.

 

However, there are clear irregularities while it appears high ranking office-holders have attempted to hide the issue from their members.

 

I don't think the club has any say in what happens at the RST but I'd imagine the Assembly will be interested in the issue given the Trust rep there is the person being accused of impropriety.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I'm not a legal or financial expert so I've no idea if anything criminal has occurred. I doubt it.

 

However, there are clear irregularities while it appears high ranking office-holders have attempted to hide the issue from their members.

 

I don't think the club has any say in what happens at the RST but I'd imagine the Assembly will be interested in the issue given the Trust rep there is the person being accused of impropriety.

 

 

So what do we have, a stooshie in the steamie, between members of an organisation which is of no importance to your average bear, except the owners of the Gersave loot.

 

Hopefully the unbridled amount of rope this organisation is being allowed will be enough to hang itself, there are far more important things in life than this nothing domestic.

[Frankie 8,200]

So what do we have, a stooshie in the steamie, between members of an organisation which is of no importance to your average bear, except the owners of the Gersave loot.

 

Hopefully the unbridled amount of rope this organisation is being allowed will be enough to hang itself, there are far more important things in life than this nothing domestic.

 

The lack of success of the Trust currently does indeed suggest 'yer average bear' way well not be interested in their feud.

 

However, I'd contend that anyone interested in supporters representation, including yourself and plenty of others given the media coverage the Trust do obtain, would want a successful independent organisation based on Trust principles.

 

As such, this serious issue is an important topic and one well worthy of discussion.

[chilledbear 16]

'On Thursday last, the Interim Secretary advised me that subsequently the auditors dropped the reference to the loan in the final version of their letter based on the legal advice received by the Board. I have asked for sight of the legal advice but this has not been forthcoming. They also dropped all references to the cash transactions; no explanation has been given for that, so one can only speculate as to the reasons for the auditors actions in that respect'.

 

 

I'm lost here, why would Auditors act in this way??

[Frankie 8,200]

'On Thursday last, the Interim Secretary advised me that subsequently the auditors dropped the reference to the loan in the final version of their letter based on the legal advice received by the Board. I have asked for sight of the legal advice but this has not been forthcoming. They also dropped all references to the cash transactions; no explanation has been given for that, so one can only speculate as to the reasons for the auditors actions in that respect'.

 

 

I'm lost here, why would Auditors act in this way??

 

No idea - I'll leave it to more informed people to speculate.

 

Certainly the legal opinion obtained by the Trust is key to this whole issue.

[Bluedell 5,376]

'On Thursday last, the Interim Secretary advised me that subsequently the auditors dropped the reference to the loan in the final version of their letter based on the legal advice received by the Board. I have asked for sight of the legal advice but this has not been forthcoming. They also dropped all references to the cash transactions; no explanation has been given for that, so one can only speculate as to the reasons for the auditors actions in that respect'.

 

 

I'm lost here, why would Auditors act in this way??

 

Auditors often issue draft letters in respect of issues arising from an audit. Many of the points raised can subsequently be dropped from final versions depending on the response from management and the severity or materiality of the issue.

 

It would be helpful if the exact dates of amounts becoming due and the exact dates of repayments of said amounts were clarified to allow a proper assessment of the facts of the case.

 

Hopefully the RST statement will clarify this, and will not resort to mudslinging.

 

I also think that the members of the RST should be allowed access to the legal advice.

[Frankie 8,200]

Auditors often issue draft letters in respect of issues arising from an audit. Many of the points raised can subsequently be dropped from final versions depending on the response from management and the severity or materiality of the issue.

 

It would be helpful if the exact dates of amounts becoming due and the exact dates of repayments of said amounts were clarified to allow a proper assessment of the facts of the case.

 

Hopefully the RST statement will clarify this, and will not resort to mudslinging.

 

I also think that the members of the RST should be allowed access to the legal advice.

 

Would it be fair to say the RST board should call an EGM given their decision not to discuss the matter last week?

[boss 0]

Certainly the legal opinion obtained by the Trust is key to this whole issue.

 

I disagree That is only one of the issues. Other issues include whether the acting chairman of the AGM was right to cover this up, whether the transactions should have been disclosed in the accounts, whether the Rules of the Trust have been breached, whether the auditors were complicit, whether SD rules have been breached, whether the board have lost the moral authority to lead etc... None of these answers necessarily flows from the legal advice.

[wabashcannonball 0]

It would be interesting to know the legal opinion on the subvention that was taken by the relevant party on the "tables" in question, financial or otherwise.