RST AGM - Secretary's statement

[Bluedell 5,355]

Perhaps because he failed to indicate that it was connected. As far as we were concerned it was regarding breaches of rules that had occurred outwith the accounting period.

 

He did fail to state that it was connected and should have followed up the point, and I don't know why he didn't, but notwithstanding that, it was known that it was connected. Even if it occurred during the previous accounting period, it is still relevant to the current set of accounts as the previous accounting period's figures and disclosures still appear.

 

Given that there has been a failure by all parties to state dates accurately and/or definitively, it also seems to me that it's still open to debate as what accounting period(s) are affected.

[pete 2,499]

PLG the biggest problem i have with all of this is you don't have to be a chartered accountant to know that even the money for a sheet of postage stamps has to appear somewhere in the accounts. Were you happy as treasurer that there was such a large amount of money missing from the funds that you could not account for on paper. I can't look after my own wallet, but i would imagine i would not find that acceptable in my responsibility as treasurer.

You must have known rules were being bent?

[plgsarmy 111]

PLG the biggest problem i have with all of this is you don't have to be a chartered accountant to know that even the money for a sheet of postage stamps has to appear somewhere in the accounts. Were you happy as treasurer that there was such a large amount of money missing from the funds that you could not account for on paper. I can't look after my own wallet, but i would imagine i would not find that acceptable in my responsibility as treasurer.

You must have known rules were being bent?

 

Sorry, but you have been misinformed. It was all accounted for.

[craig 5,199]

Yes, Mark Dingwall made such a post within the statement thread.

 

Incredulous.

 

So now to be a Trust Board member you need to first have had your initiation on FF.

 

And they wonder why some people think that the Trust is a stooge of FF.

 

Time to become more professional for the Trust - or at least see the failing of their ways.

 

Much of the trouble/problems really DOES seem to have started at the "election" of MD to the board.

 

And no, I dont have an agenda.

[pete 2,499]

Sorry, but you have been misinformed. It was all accounted for.

 

Apologies. So it was accounted for in the books but just left as outstanding debt for all that time? Was it Marked up to MD or to the function. sorry just trying to understand. I'll catch up eventually.

[craig 5,199]

Perhaps because he failed to indicate that it was connected. As far as we were concerned it was regarding breaches of rules that had occurred outwith the accounting period.

 

"Outwith the accounting period" absolutely does NOT mean that it isnt relevant to the accounts.

 

Auditors are required by law to consider the financial statements up to the point in time they are "signed off" - being outwith the accounting period but those accounts still not being signed off is in no way a defence that whatever he was going to say was irrelevant to the accounts.

 

The accounts, at the time in question, were not signed off - so anything that AH had to say very well COULD have had an effect on the financial statements.

 

Also, if they were in the "Secretary's and Treasurer's report" section then these breaches of rules should STILL br brought to the meeting at that time. Breaches of the Trust's rules (I should say alleged breaches) should be within the secretary's report.

 

Sorry, but this all smells like a cover up job to me.

[plgsarmy 111]

"Outwith the accounting period" absolutely does NOT mean that it isnt relevant to the accounts.

 

Auditors are required by law to consider the financial statements up to the point in time they are "signed off" - being outwith the accounting period but those accounts still not being signed off is in no way a defence that whatever he was going to say was irrelevant to the accounts.

 

The accounts, at the time in question, were not signed off - so anything that AH had to say very well COULD have had an effect on the financial statements.

 

Also, if they were in the "Secretary's and Treasurer's report" section then these breaches of rules should STILL br brought to the meeting at that time. Breaches of the Trust's rules (I should say alleged breaches) should be within the secretary's report.

 

Sorry, but this all smells like a cover up job to me.

 

Sorry, I'll bow to your superior knowledge of these things. My main point is that AH stated he wanted to state why he resigned as secretary and was asked to keep it until the Q&A session. He could have stated that it was related to the accounts and he'd have to be heard. He didn't and chose to walk out the meeting.

[Frankie 8,182]

Sorry, I'll bow to your superior knowledge of these things. My main point is that AH stated he wanted to state why he resigned as secretary and was asked to keep it until the Q&A session. He could have stated that it was related to the accounts and he'd have to be heard. He didn't and chose to walk out the meeting.

 

So why didn't the Trust raise the issue instead then?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Frankie

[craig 5,199]

To be fair Frankie, the Trust likely felt it didnt need to be raised as a) the auditors signed off on it and b) the legal opinion suggested that although there was a conflict of interest no wrongdoing appeared to have been done (or such to that effect).

 

Given the RST Board are representatives of the members they perhaps, though, should have shown their transparency by notifying the members of the situation - I am sure by this point they knew Alan's reasons for resigning and would have been naive in the utmost to think that this would not, in some way, shape or form, have found its way out to the ground troops.

 

It does appear that the meeting was not very organised - surely the Board knew that the Secretary was resigning ? In which case they should have planned for a resignation announcement and ALL concerned should have known at what point that resignation would be made. If it was to do with the financials then the approval of the financial statement item on the agenda is where it should have been discussed - or at least the alleged rule breaches discussed.

 

What is annoying to me is that regardless of which position you take on this, yet again, the Trust's statement is divisive in the extreme.

 

I humbly ask that one of the Trust board members clarify why Alan Harris' statement is "cynical" ? On the face of it and at its mose base level, this is someone who, in their PAYING profession, operates under the auspices of the FSA. This is someone who appears to have been told (by the auditors) that the potential rule breaches could possibly cause the FSA to take action. That in itself could open Mr Harris up to regulatory investigation and, ultimately, suspension from doing business. So can someone from the RST board please tell me why Mr Harris is being cynical and not merely attempting to protect both his professional integrity and his livelihood. Yet here we stand with the Trust, again, suggesting that it is the big bad "cynical" Mr Harris who is at fault for this debacle.

 

Surely the Trust Board could at least hold their hands up and admit a level of culpability. Lest we forget, had the transaction not taken place (and we should commend MD for at least attempting to prevent a function from being a bust - but also recognise his part in the debacle (intended OR unintended) then the whole sorry mess would never have come about. I have yet to see anything in the Trust's statement which says "we do apologise and, with hindsight, we could and should have handled this affair differently. The only thing I DO see from the Trust is deflect and deny.

[Guest sumus populi]

how sad that a great idea such as the Trust ( I was an early member, now lapsed, and still have that first share framed above this very PC) has fallen from such great excitement to what it has become today.

 

Rangers supporters divided.