The financial affairs of the RST

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I can see where you are coming from however I wonder what part of "whistleblowing" involves putting stuff on internet forums as any potential case against anyone is totally jeopardised.

 

I'm not sure a case or cases will occur here but this seems to me like whistle blowing has been far exceeded.

 

BS may I just point oput that it was on the internet for 5 days before I published the statement that I was refused the opportunity to read at the AGM.

 

I did not ask or encourage anyone to put it on the internet.

[pete 2,499]

Have to agree MF you have been asking for these people to open up and debate since you came on here. Now they have done so all you have to offer is a stupid personal attack. Most disappointing.

 

So as far as you're concerned there are no people involved or at least, if there are, the debate must not touch on them or their involvement. What a load of tosh. If you're feeling too precious to see criticism directed at real people then I genuinely feel sorry for you ... and your "disappointment".

 

I am glad you feel sorry for me at least i know someone feels something for me. That gives some pleasure in itself.

I totally have no problem if you beat someone in a debate but all you seem to do is scream in empty buildings. When anyone is around you try to win by aggressive bullshit. I don't know anyone on the RST and have never been a member so i cannot judge on what is see-sawing about on an internet site, but you seem to know what my feelings are on the subject. If you stop throwing insults and join in with the debate then it may make people think you are more than a big bag of hot air with no substance.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

That fact that Mr Harris may or may not (depending on who you believe) have been told he could make the statement later is hardly relevant - the Accounts would have been approved by then.

 

Exactly and then they would have said you can't say anything about the accounts because they've been approved!

 

And, by the way, there was no vote taken, so were they approved?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The 2010 Trust Accounts show "Professional fees" of �£4,676 (in addition to "Auditors remuneration" of a further �£2,175).

 

I do believe some (most?) of that figure may have been in regard to investigating whether or not an ownership scheme could have been put together; either in conjunction with the 'McColl' model or perhaps via tweaking of GerSave.

 

PLG would have to confirm.

 

I can confirm that the sum of �£2,300 inc VAT was spent on legal advice re a proposed Gersave2 model aimed at higher net worth individuals. It may not suprise you to learn that I was the only Board member to oppose this expenditure because in my opinion there were not sufficient or perhaps even any such people prepared to invest their money in such a scheme to make it viable. This was nothing to do with the "Mr Big" model as has been wrongly reported elsewhere. No money other than printing costs was spent on the "Mr Big" model but a great deal of time was invested by a number of people.

 

I am not certain but I think that the balance of the profesional fees is commission and fees on share purchases for new members.

[pete 2,499]

: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.

 

If people are not allowed in then it is just another empty room for you to preach to the converted without any chance of actual debate. True to form I guess.

[plgsarmy 111]

BS may I just point oput that it was on the internet for 5 days before I published the statement that I was refused the opportunity to read at the AGM.

 

I did not ask or encourage anyone to put it on the internet.

 

 

So how did it get there Alan. Was it another Board member?

[wabashcannonball 0]

VB or at least two of their members are promising news of some variety and have been for over two days, but for reasons of national security and obligations to Ladbrokes are unable to divulge this "atomic" news, therefore I have ordered all bell ends to stand down from defcon 1 and have reappraised the situation to damp squib status,,,,,,,:fish:

[pete 2,499]

VB or at least two of their members are promising news of some variety and have been for over two days, but for reasons of national security and obligations to Ladbrokes are unable to divulge this "atomic" news, therefore I have ordered all bell ends to stand down from defcon 1 and have reappraised the situation to damp squib status,,,,,,,:fish:

 

I have never been on VB but i would think if your going to shout from the Belfry then you have to expect an echo. Not letting people on to debate against them looks like a mirror image of all they seem to be against.

[craig 5,199]

I have never been on VB but i would think if your going to shout from the Belfry then you have to expect an echo. Not letting people on to debate against them looks like a mirror image of all they seem to be against.

 

I think you are misreading what MF said.

 

He said that these folks cant simply go onto VB and suppress any criticism of them.

 

Unless I am mistaken what MF is saying is that if Gersnet, for example, did something that was deemed irregular and it was being debated on other forums then VB would not let Gersnet simply go onto VB and suppress that forum from any criticism of them.

 

Personally I dont think that Gersnet suppresses criticism either - what we do is expect standards of respect - I can understand where and why someone would be pissed off at someone's behaviour - but resorting to personal insults isnt necessary no matter the situation.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So how did it get there Alan. Was it another Board member?

 

Christine, I am sorry that you don't seem to believe me. Whatever I am I am not a lier, I think you know that.

 

I honestly didn't know what to do after the AGM. My first inclination was to go to the press but before I decided how best to proceed it was on the net.

 

I did not write or contribute in any way to the original "report" of the AGM that appeared here or wherever it first appeared. I do not know who wrote it. I did not ask anyone to do anything on my behalf. I did not know this site existed. I don't know the identities of anyone here except yourself and Ben Campbell. I was on FF a few times before being banned. The only other Rangers site I have ever been on before now is "bluenose" which as you know, I was monitoring for the Board but that is so long ago that I have forgotten my login and password.

 

The first I knew about all this was when a friend sent me a text on Tuesday.

 

I reconsidered going to the press but decided to give RST a chance to publish my statement, which as you know was refused.

 

I wrote the background piece on the train up and down from Aberdeen on Saturday/Sunday.

 

I hope this satisfies you.

 

Alan