The financial affairs of the RST

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Think that'll probably be the first time in a while DylanGer has been described as an RST evangelist.

 

Once again, you open your mouth and let your belly rumble about someone you know absolutely nothing about

Edited September 28, 2010 by OnlyOneAmoruso

[boss 0]

cheers for reply. I have asked around and have spoken later on in the afternoon to someone who was at the meeting and it seems Mr Harris never actually mentioned anything about accounts at the AGM, he stood up and said, do you want to hear why I resigned or something along those lines and was actually rather sheepish. I'm also told that there was no storming out by Mr Harris and the reply he got from the chair was not prohibitive to him speaking later in the meeting. I dare say if he'd said "I wish to draw the members attention to items contained within accounts" rather than " I want to tell you why I resigned"? Who knows

 

Maybe Bluedell can confirm if that is the case? I do not know for sure.

 

And before I start getting pilloried, I'm actually neutral on this whole subject and would rather facts and truths and logics applied rather than a witch hunt either way.

 

The hysteria on FF, here and RM is a bit over the top and fuelled by agenda from some it would seem.

 

That's just from a new poster's perspective but that is the way it seems.

 

You omit to comment on the point that the chair of the meeting knew his statement was relevant to the discussion and approval of the accounts, and still blocked him from speaking at that time.

[maineflyer 0]

Think that'll probably be the first time in a while DylanGer has been described as a RST evangelist.

 

Once again, you open your mouth and let your belly rumble about someone you know absolutely nothing about.

 

Care to explain your own belly rumble sunshine? anything but the performance of the RST eh?

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Care to explain your own belly rumble sunshine?

 

Explained more than once, months ago.

 

Everyone makes mistakes or acts upon information which is second, third & fourth hand.

 

Lesson learned.

[Guest Pokeherface]

You omit to comment on the point that the chair of the meeting knew his statement was relevant to the discussion and approval of the accounts, and still blocked him from speaking at that time.

 

If the accounts had been audited and passed by the auditor, and the auditor was present, could Mr. harris' statement have had any material effect on the passing of those accounts at the AGM?

[Guest blackstoneisland]

You omit to comment on the point that the chair of the meeting knew his statement was relevant to the discussion and approval of the accounts, and still blocked him from speaking at that time.

 

that is your opinion on it. I wasn't there. I'll leave it at that.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Only as nuisance value pokerface, but we have that anyway, thank fuk the Chelski gemme is on.

[boss 0]

If the accounts had been audited and passed by the auditor, and the auditor was present, could Mr. harris' statement have had any material effect on the passing of those accounts at the AGM?

 

Of course it could. It is for the members at the AGM to approve the Accounts or otherwise, irrespective of whether an auditor is present.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I know I shouldn't laff, but this is turning into something of a spectator sport, had a look on RM, hillheadbear is handing out a singular and severe lesson to the lightweights taking him on, laff I couldn't stop...... what a fekin david essex... :fish:

[Guest Pokeherface]

Of course it could. It is for the members at the AGM to approve the Accounts or otherwise, irrespective of whether an auditor is present.

 

Would the fact that Mr. Harris complaints would have been answered by both the auditor and the independant legal advice not have seen his statement almost redundant? Would the 35 people present have voted to not pass the accounts in the face of 2 independant sources saying that it was all fine? Cant see it.

 

The fact that both the auditors and the independant legal advice passed the accounts means that the accounts were de facto 'passable' and nothing Mr. Harris could say would be material to that decision. His concerns are more on the prudency of practices and his decision to step down was based on a lack of procedural formality and personal grievance rather than legalise. that would put it firmly into the 'AOB' sphere.

 

in my most humble opinion, of course.