The financial affairs of the RST

[wabashcannonball 0]

That has to go down as one of the biggest skelpings ever dished out in any thread ever ,absolute genius and why I stay away from clever people

 

Aye you an me both m8, pity it is givin the mhanks absolute shedloads of ammo....

[craig 5,199]

How is a punter supposed to decide how to vote without the independant auditor? if the independant auditor has 'passed' the accounts, along with all bar one member of the board, how is a punter with no accounting background supposed to ever vote against the passing of the accounts? You have 17 board members and an independant body say 'yes' and one lone man saying 'no'.

 

bringing it up as AOB would have allowed Mr. Harris a platform to lodge his displeasure IMO.

 

But it doesnt matter one iota whether or not Mr Harris' statement would have prevented the approval of the accounts.

 

It was absolutely appropriate, nay, necessary, that he make public his opinion on the financial statements during the approval process.

 

I agree that it is unlikely the financial statements would not have been approved - but that doesnt mitigate that the appropriate time for the statement to be made was during the financial statement presentation.

 

Absolutely NO WAY was this an AOB item...

 

And with that... I am away to prepare meeting material for my own audit committee meeting...

[boss 0]

How is a punter supposed to decide how to vote without the independant auditor? if the independant auditor has 'passed' the accounts, along with all bar one member of the board, how is a punter with no accounting background supposed to ever vote against the passing of the accounts? You have 17 board members and an independant body say 'yes' and one lone man saying 'no'.

 

bringing it up as AOB would have allowed Mr. Harris a platform to lodge his displeasure IMO.

 

How do you know who was in the audience? Is Bluedell "a punter with no accounting background"?

 

He was one of those in attendance. If he had the opportunity to listen to Mr Harris's statement, how do you know that Bluedell wouldn't have asked some pertinent questions?

[Frankie 8,200]

MF:

 

I don't see anyone on here buying the bullsh!t as you put it.

 

A couple may express doubt about the actions of Mr Harris but even they concede the Trust (in its present form) is finished unless they make dramatic changes.

 

Any Trust board member worth their salt will admit that. If they don't then I genuinely feel sorry for them.

[Guest Dylanger]

:rolleyes:The predictability is tedious. Every time one of the RST's fukk ups leaks out there is the same FF diaspora, with delegates sent out by the Inner Circle to quell the uprising and limit any damage. Debate is quickly sterilized into a tedium of factual trivia, obscuring any aspect of the issue that might reveal fault or blame on the part of the RSTFF corporate image.

 

Suddenly there are a host of new members on the various sites (well, except VB where they can't just walk in and suppress criticism), members who have seldom or never engaged in previous forum debate and who restrict themselves to the very focussed task of defusing the situation. People like Pete love this approach and tend to respond exactly as required. We've seen this time and again ... Where did UCB go, yes, remember him? UCB lingered for a while but once the heat died down over the RST's ridiculous takeover spin, UCB vanished into the undergrowth. Now we have the latest transient RSTFF evangelist - dylanger has arrived for the backshift, armed with quasi-authority and RST insight to quell the troublemakers with assumed reasonableness. And before you can say "see a shot o yer credit card machine" we gave the less secure amongst us swallowing this pap with the relish that only the converted can muster. Endless recycling of peripheral and largely irrelevant trivia is leapt upon as being synonymous with truth. Never mind that the Mistrust has squandered half a dozen years to no effect and refuses to run it's affairs without an opacity that M16 would be proud of - some RST people have said there may well be a comma missing here and there's definitely a dot missing over that 'i' over there - so how can anyone take seriously all this criticism of the Trust? Besides which, I just feel uncomfortable with conflict and rather it all just went away.

 

Fuck sake guys, wake up and smell the bullshit these "reasonable" people are pedalling. We now have a number of RST board members debating between themselves on Gersnet and it's all for your benefit, you lucky people. Never mind though, once they've consumed all will to debate they'll be gone, leaving us to discuss who'll score the first goal next week.

 

More bullshit from yourself.

 

I believe in the truth. I have just stated on FF that the statement in itself will not be enough for the RST to progress out of this mess and it is a mess. I have also stated there are serious issues arising out of what happened and let's be straight nobody is challenging the events-the public spat is more over the semantics of the auditor's report and a lot of internal stuff. Sadly though for Mr Harris he is going to have really strong evidence to back up his statement-maybe he has but I would think based on the wording he might not have the backing of independent third parties on this. Time will tell

 

The only reason I've went on any other forums is because Frankie used my real name in relation to my very public spat with Mark Dingwall...a spat where I questioned if maybe he might consider the length he had been on the RST board and maybe he might want to share the Assembly gig. I don't think I'm on his Christmas card list.

 

So as it went on RM I am actually backing the Trust when all I'm doing is giving opinions based on knowing some of the people involved etc etc.

 

That's the problem of the cartoon nature of internet debating it's all black and white with people fitting into little boxes marked good guys and wanks. It makes for fun reading but not a serious analysis of events.

[Guest Pokeherface]

But it doesnt matter one iota whether or not Mr Harris' statement would have prevented the approval of the accounts.

 

It was absolutely appropriate, nay, necessary, that he make public his opinion on the financial statements during the approval process.

 

I agree that it is unlikely the financial statements would not have been approved - but that doesnt mitigate that the appropriate time for the statement to be made was during the financial statement presentation.

 

Absolutely NO WAY was this an AOB item...

 

And with that... I am away to prepare meeting material for my own audit committee meeting...

 

 

Have fun. I will add that as Secretary and not tresurer, his comments fall even further from material in my eyes. He was not trying to prevent the accounts being passed, he was trying to explain why he resigned. The accounts were passable, I am sure he would admit that himself and so his comments fall very securely into AOB. Why, afterall, bring it up during a discussion on a set of accounts you are not disputing?

 

His statement absolutely had a place at the AGM and should certainly have been heard. Whether that falls under the accounts section or AOB is actually totally irrelivant. That his statement was not heard is at least as much Mr. Harris' fault as anyones.

 

Anyway, nice wee sidetrack, but not really heading anywhere. Enjoy your work while I sip a sherry and watch the madness slowly unfold

[boss 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:

 

HHB seems to have gone after the pros joined in. He's left a trail of inconsistencies and unanswered questions.

 

(Only joking HHB :box: )

[Guest Pokeherface]

How do you know who was in the audience? Is Bluedell "a punter with no accounting background"?

 

He was one of those in attendance. If he had the opportunity to listen to Mr Harris's statement, how do you know that Bluedell wouldn't have asked some pertinent questions?

 

Ok Boss. There were 35 accountants in the audience.

 

You seem to like argueing instead of debating just as much as your colleague here, Mr Maineflyer.

 

Again, and for posterity, it makes no real difference when the statement should have been read out. Mr. Harris undoubtably had the chance and decided against it. perhaps that he did was a blessing because it seems to have opened a platform for serious discusion.

 

He wanted to explain not that the accounts were 'faulty', more that he had reasons to walk. AOB by any description.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Pokeherface

[wabashcannonball 0]

HHB seems to have gone after the pros joined in. He's left a trail of inconsistencies and unanswered questions.

 

(Only joking HHB :box: )

 

It's better than fekin Wall Street...HHB is givin yon willhelm gadjie a serious seeing to..keep the fires burnin Boss...:box:

[rbr 1,247]

It's better than fekin Wall Street...HHB is givin yon willhelm gadjie a serious seeing to..keep the fires burnin Boss...:box:

 

Aye very good wabash , your getting dotery in your old age , it's the other wayround and boss is waying in with a few well placed killer blows as well