RST's new Treasurer

[ascender 352]

There is no way that the RST can be blamed for not wanting to debate with people happy to besmirch or call into question the name of someone they know nothing about save their qualifications and a single aquaintance.

 

Much of these problems have come about because the trust don't even want to debate with their own members or anyone who doesn't share their view of the world. It appears that if you post on any message board other than FF, they don't want to know about you. All very perplexing.

[rbr 1,247]

Sorry but we are getting into a debate about a debate . All I wanted to know is if it is best practice to appoint someone , never having met or interviewed them , on the recomendation of one person .

 

The fact that that person may or may not have benefitted financially seems to have dissappeared .

 

I also dont believe that impartiality can simply dissappear if you have been close friends with someone for a numer of years .

 

 

Just to reiterate I firmly believe in the aims and objectives of a RST run properly , this isn't it by some considerable distance ,and to some MD is now being seen as a saviour of the RST

[Guest Pokeherface]

A few things if I may:

 

Unfortunately by their very nature internet forums and any kind of thread you care to mention often deviate from the point at hand to irrelevant tangents. Just as conversations and opinions change in real life, so they do here.

 

Sure some people won't concentrate on the matter at hand and that may well derail the odd debate somewhat. Indeed, there is a fine line between what is appropriate and what is not. Petty comparisons to Shipman (though not meant seriously I'm sure) are exactly that and the only person that doesn't gain from such comparisons is the person who posts it. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that.

 

To that end, I'm sure (or I'd hope) that the Trust (like the rest of us) are more than capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff. To allow a minority of people to tarnish the opinion of the majority is unfair and incorrect. Just as any Trust critics have tried to show that certain recent issues are the fault of a minority of board members, not the whole organisation.

 

Of course controversial subjects such as financial irregularities are going to provoke speculation; some helpful, probably even more not. However, once again, any attempt to deflect from the actual problems raised to the way people make their criticism (or indeed the critics themselves) is somewhat disingenuous and equally unhelpful.

 

Finally, there's no need to protest your innocence over defending the Trust or such-like. Balance to the debate is welcome and more people would do well to examine both sides more often. To that end, perhaps you'd care to examine the Trust contribution to inaccuracy, besmirching professionals and less than constructive suspicions?

 

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?'

[Guest Pokeherface]

Much of these problems have come about because the trust don't even want to debate with their own members or anyone who doesn't share their view of the world. It appears that if you post on any message board other than FF, they don't want to know about you. All very perplexing.

 

I say that this type of thread simply gives them further excuse.

[Frankie 8,150]

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?'

 

I'm about to leave work so will come back to this later...

[bmck 117]

I say that this type of thread simply gives them further excuse.

 

It's not an excuse that would be used by honourable leadership, though. Even if there were only reasonable criticism, it wouldn't make any difference I don't imagine.

[rbr 1,247]

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?'

 

 

A very decent post and the part now in bold is at the heart guts of it and has been for some time , he has been at the center of nearly every contentious issue since he first managed to weedle his way onto the RST board , but then maybe he is not the messiah ut just a very naughty boy ...

 

Sorry just read this again , the point I made was not that she was a friend of MD but the board had never met her nor interviewed her , also this "petty financial" matter has been going on for 2 years and ended up costing the RST membership over �£4500 in fees , and was something that this new treasurer was going to be directly involved with , and guess what when push came to shove she backed MD , now there may be nothing wrong with that but as far as I am concerned something stinks.

Edited October 1, 2010 by rbr

[Guest Pokeherface]

It's not an excuse that would be used by honourable leadership, though. Even if there were only reasonable criticism, it wouldn't make any difference I don't imagine.

 

then I will refer you to a comment made just after that one.

[bmck 117]

then I will refer you to a comment made just after that one.

 

I'm not sure which comment you're talking about, but I do broadly agree with you that hyperbolic criticism gives them an avenue to cast doubts on the motives of any questions - and in questioning the motives of the questioner you don't need to answer anyone's questions as they all begin tainted. However, the answer can't be to mirror the Trust's approach - you can't delete threads and stiffle subjects of debate because they're unhelpful in the opposite sense and for the opposite reasons. There's no sensible alternative to letting people say what they want and trusting in the good judgement of people to decide for themselves. If the Trust adopted this approach themselves I think they'd be suprised to find how capable people are of discerning dodgy motives for themselves. If you honestly want to silence criticism that's too harsh because it can be misused you have to trust in the people doing the silencing to know better than everyone else, and in general terms, they don't.

[ascender 352]

I say that this type of thread simply gives them further excuse.

 

It shouldn't give them any sort of excuse. Any professional organisation knows that there will be some stuff in the public domain that they don't give credence to by acknowledging it. Its just nonsense, it won't harm them as such and they rise above it. Instead, they devote their time to maintaining dialogue and communication with their membership and interested parties in a professional manner.

 

Meanwhile, we have lots of new posters cropping up here, posting information, rumours, gossip, the "truth", asking for advice on how the RST should go forward, but in many cases we've no idea who these people are and if they're connected to the trust or not. Sorry, I know its a point I keep going on about, but it appears no-one at the trust has learned anything in the last couple of weeks and is just taking counsel from like-minded individuals on FF.

 

Say what you will about the tone or content of some of the posts on this thread, but surely you can see the very valid question at the heart of it?

 

Your point about MD not wanting to step down in case his detractors see it as a victory is again, a moot one. If he resigns, what do these people behind the various "smear campaigns" actually get? Some time to gloat on the internet? Meanwhile, the trust can honestly claim to have made a fresh start and move forward.

 

We keep saying that no man is bigger than the club in the football world and this is true in the business world as well.

 

There's been a lot of sense spoken on this forum and others, often from new posters who may or may not be officially linked to the trust over the course of this week. I've seen more than one acknowledging mistakes were made and the fall-out wasn't handled properly. But every time I checked out the reaction back on FF from people who also appear to be linked to the trust, its as if they're still living in their world where nothing's happened and its business as usual.

 

Its just been a very confusing week and like I've also said before, I feel like all this has done is given me confirmation that i've pissed my lifetime membership up against the wall.