RST's new Treasurer

[rbr 1,247]

Are you party to trust board level decision making to know that is all true? Does every member have to meet her despite her obvious qualifications for the role?

 

Not every one does , but more than one would be preferable , and how do you know she is qualified if you have never met her ...Surely you can see my point .

 

Yet again we , the RST members , are let down by bad decision making at the highest level , and when it get's brought up , it's a case of move along nothing to see here , we know what were doing .

 

 

If anyone on here is ever in the position of hiring or co-opting someone into a position of responsibility , for any organisation which has to answer to a membership , please come on and tell me I am wrong and that they would be quite happy to do this on one person's say so , without ever having met said person , if that is the case I will stick to the football and leave you all to it .

[plgsarmy 111]

Not every one does , but more than one would be preferable , and how do you know she is qualified if you have never met her ...Surely you can see my point .

 

Yet again we , the RST members , are let down by bad decision making at the highest level , and when it get's brought up , it's a case of move along nothing to see here , we know what were doing .

 

 

If anyone on here is ever in the position of hiring or co-opting someone into a position of responsibility , for any organisation which has to answer to a membership , please come on and tell me I am wrong and that they would be quite happy to do this on one person's say so , without ever having met said person , if that is the case I will stick to the football and leave you all to it .

 

Yeah, just go back to the football rbr:spl: For information, with last year's AGM notice we sent out a skills audit where we asked members to volunteer and said that we were looking for particular skills, one being accountancy. This was also placed on our website. Although we got a fairly good response, we didn't get anyone with an accountancy qualification. We tried to get several others onboard but all were too busy to commit time. Mark was aware of AM as he knew her many years ago and had met up with her again as she started attending some RST functions. She was not invited onto the Board as treasurer, she has been on the board for several months and was obviously the ideal candidate to take over.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Yeah, just go back to the football rbr:spl: For information, with last year's AGM notice we sent out a skills audit where we asked members to volunteer and said that we were looking for particular skills, one being accountancy. This was also placed on our website. Although we got a fairly good response, we didn't get anyone with an accountancy qualification. We tried to get several others onboard but all were too busy to commit time. Mark was aware of AM as he knew her many years ago and had met up with her again as she started attending some RST functions. She was not invited onto the Board as treasurer, she has been on the board for several months and was obviously the ideal candidate to take over.

 

Well I can play the moothie and the spoons, the spoons would be useful fer stirring it, would these specialist skills be of use...:fish:

[plgsarmy 111]

Well I can play the moothie and the spoons, the spoons would be useful fer stirring it, would these specialist skills be of use...:fish:

 

 

You can get a gig at our next event. Do you want to go on before or after the Cheerleaders?

[rbr 1,247]

Yeah, just go back to the football rbr:spl: For information, with last year's AGM notice we sent out a skills audit where we asked members to volunteer and said that we were looking for particular skills, one being accountancy. This was also placed on our website. Although we got a fairly good response, we didn't get anyone with an accountancy qualification. We tried to get several others onboard but all were too busy to commit time. Mark was aware of AM as he knew her many years ago and had met up with her again as she started attending some RST functions. She was not invited onto the Board as treasurer, she has been on the board for several months and was obviously the ideal candidate to take over.

 

 

 

Thank you , that was all I wanted to know .

[Frankie 8,182]

My thoughts on the trust are very clear and nothing of a mystery.

 

The vast majority of the people currently on the board or previously on the board are fantastic, passionate supporters with the best interests of the club at heart. The RST itself is founded on great principals and has an ultimate goal that may not be everyones cup of tea but requires to be aired (making the trust, in my mind, absolutely vital). The Trust has won some huge battles over the last 7 years.

 

The RST is foundering and a huge part of that is down to itself. A well known poster on FF posted that if they want to buy the club, they have to be professional in all aspects (or words to that effect) and I cant agree more. If you are running on a mandate of buying the club, you need to prove that the club will be in good hands if you succeed. Mr. Harris brought up some legitimate issues that show the RST board as acting in a less than professional matter and then being less than open about it subsequently. In my mind the issues raised themselves are fairly petty and in a fair world they would not have recieved half the commentary that they did. However, a track record of failing to address issues and failing to address the membership has opened up a field where criticism is more likely to stick. The continued use of FF as a trust auxiliary website is very harmful because it takes the debates, splits people into 'sides' and then keeps them apart. In the face of that, the 'pro' people see only the pro arguement and form their opinions on that and the odd view from the other side, and obviously vica versa.

 

the 'anti' (simply used for ease of language) grab for any slight chance of scoring a point and in so doing weaken their over-all point. Complaining about an accountant being a friend of MD does nothing but discredit the entire arguement and cause the real issues to be easily argued against. trust spokesperson has a very, very convenient get-out on here now because of this thread. They need simply point towards it and ask 'what is the point furnishing you with the answers you say you want, if this is the kind if arguement you want to make'. It doesnt matter that a few are not in agreement with the OP, the threads existance is excuse.

 

That is not to say the Trust should use that excuse, but if you are looking for answers and they are slow coming, it often pays to remove obstacles.

 

The Trust statemnt was symptomatic of some of their previous problems. Instead of an appologetic tone explaining their actions and setting out what will happen going forward, they released a piece designed to attack. That is fine if you are blameless but when there has been admitted wrongdoing, it looks as nothing other than deflection (however valid some of the points may be). It goes back to the professionalim aspect. If you cannot face your mistakes without attacking others, you are not showing signs of maturity as a group or the ability to satisfactorily deal with any future issues that might, if you succeed, involve the club we all come together to watch.

 

Mark Dingwall needs to resign for the good of the organisation. I personally do not think that these latest problems are serious enough to merit that and I do not believe anything was done with malicious fore-thought. However, he is not bigger than the trust and if membership numbers could be doubled at a stroke (going by here and RM, I am not sure that is unrealistic) then it is worth considering. On top of that, if he is constantly embroiled in circumstances such as the last few weeks, his presence is causing harm, regardless of whether that is through his own fault or not. He would argue that the critics will have 'won' if he steps down, but the question in that case is 'If you win, what exactly is left for you to cart off in your spoils wagon?'

 

Apologies for the delay but shopping, family, chill-out, etc etc...

 

Thanks for taking the time to detail your opinion, it is appreciated. I certainly agree with most of what you write about the Trust but I do take issue (as others have done in my absence) with your thoughts on one or two other things.

 

For example, you are generally correct in suggesting that any exaggerated criticism of the Trust detracts from the whole. I doubt anyone would disagree with that and I've certainly said as much before here and elsewhere. As such, here on Gersnet in particular, we're very careful when it comes to most subjects that affects our relationship with external parties (be it the Trust, the Assembly or others we've worked with in the past to good effect).

 

Obviously, there is a fine line between permitting open debate on said issues/parties and censorship. I personally feel (and it is only my own opinion) that any exaggerated claims about any given subject are better debated openly as if someone makes an unusual claim about something it is easily debated against and shown to be wrong. With respect to rbr (who I know is a good poster) I think this was one such thread. He made what most people feel is a cynical, inaccurate claim and most disagreed with him (although a few then extracted the proverbial of accountants they know on here). PLG has then come on and refuted this claim and easily explained the situation.

 

Absolutely no harm done; other than possibly to rbr for looking overly cynical.

 

Now, if anyone takes a thread like this to be typical of this forum then they're sorely mistaken. Sure there are a few users that may be a bit more controversial in their style but generally Gersnet is a small forum, with good quality posters, no Celtic fans that we know of and an atmosphere of intelligent, respectful debate. That's why it is one of the few forums the RST still use despite the fact they know there may be the odd exaggerated claim to deal with (or ignore). That is their decision to make.

 

Does this mean this specific thread detracts from the current (and possibly ongoing) undercurrent of frustration with the RST on here and elsewhere in the community? Perhaps - but again I personally don't think so. I think the valid concerns of life members on here, former board members on here and potential members are still more than applicable. Indeed, I'd contend that because we on here not only allow open debate but show the correct balance when required to disagree with the more vocal critics, that in fact, increases the credibility of our opinion.

 

Now, I may be completely wrong. I'm sure you'd disagree with that analysis for sure and others may do so as well. But that is exactly why we have this forum. For open debate where all opinions are welcome and all information aired for everyone to have their say (or just read about).

 

I won't apologise to anyone for that, least of all some of the chancers on FF who do exactly the opposite.

 

[Frankie 8,182]

tell you what, while you are telling me I spout absolute nonsense, chew this over from Deedle....

 

 

 

 

whether you like it or not, Deedle has just completely discredited a source of flak with one simple sentance. It doesnt matter in the slightest that YOU dont see it as discrediting you, the fact that the largest source of info (FF) has written this place off a source of stupidity means that people will simply view everything said here as dubious. You know it is wrong and that there is plenty good done here. I know it. But how on earth can a neutral observer split the fact from the fiction in your complaints when arguements such as this are made? The answer is they cant. But dont mind me, it is all nonsense

 

'Deedle' or whatever pseudonym he hides behind may attempt to discredit this forum but the day I worry about anyone taking his imbalanced opinion seriously is a long, long way away.

 

This is the guy who posts second hand malicious lies on FF (and other forums) then disappears when shown just how wrong his information is.

 

I do wonder what 'discipline' the person from the RST Board who feeds him will receive though? Perhaps the same as Mr Harris?

[Frankie 8,182]

Fuck sake, where are all these new posters coming from. Has Frankie been on a well-concealed recruitment drive over on FF? Seems the FFRST A-team has been mobilised to stun dissent with an onslaught of exceedingly drab propaganda. I'd advise against wasting their time ... it's shite when posted on FF and it gains nothing on the short journey over to Gersnet.

 

Besides, where have these people been until now? Why have we been deprived of their wisdom until now? Has Frankie been deliberately keeping us in the dark? Has there been a break-in?

 

I'm enjoying the new opinions and balance these people are bringing to the debate.

 

With regard to new posters, well we've seen a few on here and elsewhere in recent times and hopefully they're enjoying broadening their horizons.

 

As always though folks, please pay heed to our simple House Rules so we can all get along nicely when chewin' the fat.

 

[maineflyer 0]

I'm enjoying the new opinions and balance these people are bringing to the debate.

 

With regard to new posters, well we've seen a few on here and elsewhere in recent times and hopefully they're enjoying broadening their horizons.

 

As always though folks, please pay heed to our simple House Rules so we can all get along nicely when chewin' the fat.

 

 

Tongue in cheek Frankie, tongue in cheek. Can't always ensure folks recognise that though. I'm also greatly enjoying what our guests are offering, most entertaining.

[Frankie 8,182]

Tongue in cheek Frankie, tongue in cheek. Can't always ensure folks recognise that though. I'm also greatly enjoying what our guests are offering, most entertaining.

 

You know that, I know that and most of our regulars would know that.

 

May take a bit of time for any new users to appreciate your, erm, different sense of humour so in the meantime, be gentle and avoid the Gersnet (and the FF it seems) naughty step.