UPDATE - Conversation with Mr John Bennett (Blue Knights)

[capstans 0]

Car crash syndrome keep looking to see if there is any survivors, I wouldn't let it affect your life though.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

So the CEO of Diageo should be an an alcoholic ?

 

I am sure the powers that be at Supporters Direct are aware BH is not a member of the RST - and if they had an issue with it they would probably have dealt with it, no?

 

lol, but its not quite the same thing really now is it?

 

Im not having a go at the guy himself, (although I can see on re-reading my post that it might appear that way) more the position. I cant see how a representative body (in football circles) can say one thing and do another.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

You were at the AGM last year where he was denied the opportunity to speak at the relevant time. The actions of the board that day have made me question my membership and put me off attending this year's meeting (and I'm still waiting for a copy of the minutes....)

 

Whatever the pros and cons were of the point that BH was going to make, there was still censorship and I can't blame anyone for resigning.

 

I don't see that having a specific grievance with one trust means that someone can't support and promote the trust movement in general.

 

I was indeed beside you at that AGM and the fall-out from that was indeed very well documented at the time. Likewise I didnt go to this years AGM so not sure how it went as I havent quite got my minutes yet either!

 

I have no issue with him resigning from the board of the RST, but IMO if it was me in charge of SDS trying to promote other clubs to create trusts and spread fan ownership, I would certainly feel I had to practice what I preached and at least be a member of the Trust associated with the team I supported. I dont see how I can promote Trusts in general and not be a member of my own trust. He is perfectly entitled to be non-supportive of the current board of the RST's ideas and workings, but not even retaining membership whilst taking on a position at the mother group just jumps out to me as being wrong. Perhaps its me.

[plgsarmy 111]

You were at the AGM last year where he was denied the opportunity to speak at the relevant time. The actions of the board that day have made me question my membership and put me off attending this year's meeting (and I'm still waiting for a copy of the minutes....)

 

Whatever the pros and cons were of the point that BH was going to make, there was still censorship and I can't blame anyone for resigning.

 

I don't see that having a specific grievance with one trust means that someone can't support and promote the trust movement in general.

 

Bluedell, we spoke about this privately at the time and we disagreed with what was said but as it has been brought up again I will answer. TB and BH were sitting near you so I have to accept that the Chairman's voice did not carry to where you were sitting. I actually e-mailed the auditor to ask what her recollection was regarding what was said and it was the same as mine. We were discussing the financial part of the accounts when BH got up and said he wanted to read out a statement regarding why he had resigned a secretary. I can't remember the precise words used but it was along the lines of that it was not the appropriate part of the meeting and he should bring it up during the Q&A at the end. I would swear to that on my son's life. I am not a liar but I also know that you and TB are not either. I wish that BH had waited and made his statement as it could possibly have been put to bed at that stage without people still posting misleading information about it 18 months later.

[Bluedell 5,373]

Bluedell, we spoke about this privately at the time and we disagreed with what was said but as it has been brought up again I will answer. TB and BH were sitting near you so I have to accept that the Chairman's voice did not carry to where you were sitting. I actually e-mailed the auditor to ask what her recollection was regarding what was said and it was the same as mine. We were discussing the financial part of the accounts when BH got up and said he wanted to read out a statement regarding why he had resigned a secretary. I can't remember the precise words used but it was along the lines of that it was not the appropriate part of the meeting and he should bring it up during the Q&A at the end. I would swear to that on my son's life. I am not a liar but I also know that you and TB are not either. I wish that BH had waited and made his statement as it could possibly have been put to bed at that stage without people still posting misleading information about it 18 months later.

 

The issue impacted the accounts and as such it WAS the correct time for it to be discussed. The chairman should have allowed it at that point.

 

We are not disagreeing with what was said and I am not accusing anyone of lying. Given what was subsequently explained to me in private, I believe the accounts should not have been approved as they stood but those attending the meeting were prevented from hearing an issue that did have accounting implications and that is disappointing (to me at least...probably nobody else would have cared but that's not the point).

 

The lack of minutes is also disappointing.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm sorry BH, but thats not really good enough is it. Dame Pauline Green is a political figurehead for the organisation, and she doesn't even say that she has a favourite team.

 

As a Rangers supporter and former secretary of the RST, and as head of SD in Scotland surely you have a duty to lead by example and at least be a member of the Trust of the team you support.

 

I really can't see how you can promote supporters trusts while snubbing your own teams Trust. What signal does that give out to those you go to see to promote trusts at their clubs?

 

I would certainly feel I had to practice what I preached and at least be a member of the Trust associated with the team I supported. I dont see how I can promote Trusts in general and not be a member of my own trust.

 

I have made my position perfectly clear and I see no reason why I cannot promote Trusts in general despite the fact that I choose not to be a member of RST at this time.

 

Knowing Dame Pauline as I have come to over the past two years I can say with some degree of certainty that she would not accept your description of her as a "political figurehead for the organisation" and I can tell you that despite the fact that she is not a member of a Trust she promotes and works for the organisation extremely hard.

 

I would also like to say that the fact that I am not a member of a Trust has not hindered me in meetings with the Scottish Government, the JAG/JRG, the Police and the football authorities on behalf of SDS over the past year, despite the fact that it is well known to all these bodies that I am a lifelong Rangers supporter.

 

This is all some way off the original topic of this thread and I can say that although the subject may well be moot, I am still trying to establish if Mr Bennett was or is a member of the Blue Knights.

[plgsarmy 111]

The issue impacted the accounts and as such it WAS the correct time for it to be discussed. The chairman should have allowed it at that point.

 

We are not disagreeing with what was said and I am not accusing anyone of lying. Given what was subsequently explained to me in private, I believe the accounts should not have been approved as they stood but those attending the meeting were prevented from hearing an issue that did have accounting implications and that is disappointing (to me at least...probably nobody else would have cared but that's not the point).

 

The lack of minutes is also disappointing.

 

BD, just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that you said that I had lied and I'm sorry it came across that way. Obviously, if BH had heard what had been said then he could have said that what he had to say was pertinent to the accounts and we could have avoided what subsequently happened. Regarding the minutes, I see they have not been posted on our website and I'll try to get that rectified.

[craig 5,199]

The auditor should have known that it was pertinent to the accounts though. For the auditor to not acknowledge, and recommend the chair allow, BH to make his statement was a bit negligent IMHO.

[plgsarmy 111]

The auditor should have known that it was pertinent to the accounts though. For the auditor to not acknowledge, and recommend the chair allow, BH to make his statement was a bit negligent IMHO.

 

Not really Craig, BH only said that he wanted to say why he resigned, I don't think it was the auditor's place to second guess what he was going to say.

[craig 5,199]

Not really Craig, BH only said that he wanted to say why he resigned, I don't think it was the auditor's place to second guess what he was going to say.

 

If that is the case then fair enough plg