RST AGM - Secretary's statement

[ascender 352]

Just had a quick look on FF (the unofficial/official trust forum) and the replies on there are basically saying the statement confirms that Harris is the troublemaker and there was nothing wrong with what happened. So like the statement suggests and others have said, its just never their fault.

 

I'm the same Craig, just feel like I'd have been better off spending my life membership on booze or on a horse.

[craig 5,199]

Just had a quick look on FF (the unofficial/official trust forum) and the replies on there are basically saying the statement confirms that Harris is the troublemaker and there was nothing wrong with what happened. So like the statement suggests and others have said, its just never their fault.

 

I'm the same Craig, just feel like I'd have been better off spending my life membership on booze or on a horse.

 

I dont frequent FF so thanks for bringing that tidbit over Mike.... but are we really surprised ??

 

Yep, Alan Harris must be the troublemaker here. Never mind that MD owed that money for a considerable length of time, never mind that he doesnt appear to have been chased for it, never mind that the auditors seem to have confirmed that the financial controls within the Trust were lacking, never mind the probably conflict of interest, never mind that the Trust has lurched from crisis to crisis for the better part of two years, never mind that the financial statements appear to have been incorrect, never mind the debacle over the "only show in town"... and the list continueth......

 

Alan Harris brought up what appears to have been, at the very least, a lack of financial controls, a probably conflict of interest, a breach of various Trust rules......

 

And yet Alan Harris is the troublemaker.....

 

That's right - best toe the FF/RST party line - wouldnt want a lifetime ban over there, right ?

 

Incredulous, absolutely unbelievable.

 

As Alan said, he is an IFA and bound by FSA rules - if he sees what he considers to be wrongdoing or if he sees conflict of interest or a set of financial statements that he believes to be inaccurate - he would have been duty bound to highlight it.

 

Rather than being a troublemaker I would consider that Alan Harris did nothing other than attempt to protect himself from FSA sanctions and retain his own professional status.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Their statement completely mixes up "Auditors report" with "Management letter". They mean the latter but they say the former; they can't even get their statement right all these days later. I wonder whether, in writing this statement, they received the same quality of legal advice to which their statement refers.

 

Also, their own statement damns the accounts - "Mr. Dingwall was unable to sell the seats immediately and as the RST had organised the events, he was therefore deemed liable for the outstanding monies" - this should have been disclosed in the 2009 and 2010 accounts, end of. What on earth were the auditors thinking about, assuming they knew about the transactions in the first place?

 

 

Are you nitpickin....

[Super_Ally 0]

Shame I bought a life membership - the RST, more so than Alan Harris, lacks credibility these days - does it have any left ?

 

Speak to MF, he can get you your money back.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Even if legal advice says it would be "unreasonable" for MD to resign - the practicality is that this whole sorry episode makes his position untenable.

 

And suggesting Alan Harris was "furthering his own goals" is incredulous. The guy is an IFA and needs to abide by FSA rules - he was being asked to sign off on accounts which were, regardless of the piss and wind coming from the RST, inaccurate - these transactions, at the very least, should have been disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.

 

Further, as the statement that Alan Harris wanted to make related to the financial statements he should NOT have been forced to wait for the "open-floor" part of the meeting. FFS, the guy was being asked to sign off on financial statements that he deemed he could not professionally do - just when was he supposed to tell those present that he wasnt signing them ?? Oh wait, he was supposed to sign financials that he didnt agree with and then make his statement later - at which point his credibility would be even further diminished - he would have signed off on the financials and the AFTER that would have stated he didnt believe the financials.... makes not one jot of sense.

 

?

 

 

Thank you, don't think I could have put it better myself.

 

And by the way, consider this. If I had heard the Chair say that I could read the statement later, which I didn't, don't you think that I would have waited? It took me all week to write for goodness sake. Anyone who knows anything about me, including the Board of RST know that I am not afraid to speak my mind.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I dont frequent FF so thanks for bringing that tidbit over Mike.... but are we really surprised ??

 

Alan Harris brought up what appears to have been, at the very least, a lack of financial controls, a probably conflict of interest, a breach of various Trust rules......

 

 

As Alan said, he is an IFA and bound by FSA rules - if he sees what he considers to be wrongdoing or if he sees conflict of interest or a set of financial statements that he believes to be inaccurate - he would have been duty bound to highlight it.

 

Rather than being a troublemaker I would consider that Alan Harris did nothing other than attempt to protect himself from FSA sanctions and retain his own professional status.

 

That is exactly what I did.

 

 

I'll change my name to "Troublemaker" makes a change from "Mr Pedantic"

[craig 5,199]

That is exactly what I did.

 

 

I'll change my name to "Troublemaker" makes a change from "Mr Pedantic"

 

Actually, the more I think about this, the more it troubles me that you are even being labelled as "Mr Pedantic" by some RST Board members.

 

My take on it is that it is inferring that you like to "dot i's and cross t's" whereas some others would rather be running roughshod. Apologies if that isnt the case but I would prefer a "Mr pedantic" to a "Mr fly in the face of authority" any day of the week...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Actually, the more I think about this, the more it troubles me that you are even being labelled as "Mr Pedantic" by some RST Board members.

 

My take on it is that it is inferring that you like to "dot i's and cross t's" whereas some others would rather be running roughshod. Apologies if that isnt the case but I would prefer a "Mr pedantic" to a "Mr fly in the face of authority" any day of the week...

 

I appreciate your concern but really don't mind "Mr Pedantic". Actually you are not the first to infer that I like to "dot i's and cross t's" . When I was on the FIMBRA Council one of my colleagues wrote exactly that about me only he said that Alan Harris likes to dot every "i" and cross every"t". I am happy with that description.

[Guest Pokeherface]

BH, thank you for clearing up some of what has been said. As someone who is in no way based in finance it can be extremely difficult to see the exact nature of what has occurred and if you are happy to answer questions on the subject it goes, in my mind anyway, a long way to building your credibility (if that sort of thing concerns you, that is; I could well understand you not caring what faceless voices say about you).

 

Reading both sides has been very helpful but I would like to ask if you will be visiting FF to explain your actions more thouroughly? Clearly these debates polarize opinion and while everything you are saying here is taken at face value and with little in the way of suspicion, the same can be said of statements coming from the trust on FF. there are many people on that board who would benefit from a follow up from yourself and it would perhaps go some little way towards removing the perception that this has been a co-ordinated 'attack' with the collusion of various sites. Of course, the reception is unlikely to be friendly, but a simple follow up may be worth considering, even if it is posted and left as a stand alone piece.

[pete 2,499]

BH, thank you for clearing up some of what has been said. As someone who is in no way based in finance it can be extremely difficult to see the exact nature of what has occurred and if you are happy to answer questions on the subject it goes, in my mind anyway, a long way to building your credibility (if that sort of thing concerns you, that is; I could well understand you not caring what faceless voices say about you).

 

Reading both sides has been very helpful but I would like to ask if you will be visiting FF to explain your actions more thouroughly? Clearly these debates polarize opinion and while everything you are saying here is taken at face value and with little in the way of suspicion, the same can be said of statements coming from the trust on FF. there are many people on that board who would benefit from a follow up from yourself and it would perhaps go some little way towards removing the perception that this has been a co-ordinated 'attack' with the collusion of various sites. Of course, the reception is unlikely to be friendly, but a simple follow up may be worth considering, even if it is posted and left as a stand alone piece.

 

I don't know but i would imagine he is banned. People have been banned for less. Much less.