Jings - Leggoland

[Bluedell 5,356]

 

I beg to disagree with this interpretation. Prior to the changes that were agreed in October 2009, the rules stated:

 

 

 

In my opinion it is clear from the fact that there was such a section in the rules, does mean that these were the only circumstances in which refunds could be made. The rule didn't say "or any other circumstances that the administrators/ board shall decide".

 

I know what the rules were. Section 14 detailed what had to be done where a refunds MUST be made. The rules don't say what happens in other circumstances and it is a huge leap to infer that these are the only circumstances that refunds can be made. As you admit, it's only your interpretation of the rules.

 

Look at page 2 of the rules document "The shares are bought and held in the Rangers Supporters Trust name. However fans are not locked in and can extract their money or shares at any time." It's clear what the intention was.

 

As I said previously, there is nothing in the rules to preclude other refunds and if there's any doubt then rule 17 can always be used "The decision of the Administrators in any dispute or question regarding the Scheme affecting any Member will be final and binding on the parties concerned."

[Bluedell 5,356]

most rangers fans are not masons but to equate that to a dislike or misstrust of masonry would be incorrect.

 

Over 75% of my supporters club were masons.

[Stimpy 0]

Over 75% of my supporters club were masons.

 

I'm the only one.

 

Rest are in the OO or AB though!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Look at page 2 of the rules document "The shares are bought and held in the Rangers Supporters Trust name. However fans are not locked in and can extract their money or shares at any time." It's clear what the intention was.

 

As I said previously, there is nothing in the rules to preclude other refunds and if there's any doubt then rule 17 can always be used "The decision of the Administrators in any dispute or question regarding the Scheme affecting any Member will be final and binding on the parties concerned."

 

Fans were not locked in, members were.

 

In any event this statement did not form part of the rules and I would suggest that (Mr Smith) was quite simply wrong, or at least the rules were written a different way.

 

I would also suggest that it was equally clear that it was the intention of those who wrote the original rules, that members would indeed be locked in and that there was sound reason for that, namely the administration and record keeping involved in encashments or liquidating small numbers of shares, something to which I am sure that the then Treasurer will readily attest.

 

So far as I am aware Rule 17 was never invoked because no administrators had been formally appointed until October 2009/February 2010. At the time I joined the Trust Board in September 2009, Steve Martin was considered the authority on the scheme rules and the Treasurer, Christine Somerville, deferred to him. There was a long running issue about who was responsible for reconciling the contributions. For reasons that I just don't have time to go into at the moment, the Administrators that were appointed at that time never met whilst I was in office and to the best of my knowledge and belief that situation persisted up until at least the end of last year.

 

As we are both past Secretarys of the Trust, I think we can agree to disagree on our interpretations of these rules; but it is a fact that the Board adopted the changes that I proposed.

Edited December 3, 2012 by BrahimHemdani
typo

[3909 04 0]

most rangers fans are not masons but to equate that to a dislike or misstrust of masonry would be incorrect.

 

To paraphrase an earlier post on this thread: "So, you know that 'most of the support' are not Masons, do you? What utter nonsense, perhaps you should broaden your outlook ..."

[3909 04 0]

We're sitting at more than 1600 now. I think that the £10 membership is a factor but, more importantly, the vast majority of fans are mostly interested in what is happening on the pitch. However we have 22K following us on Twitter and over £16K likes on Facebook which I believe is more than any other fans groups or websites.

 

You're claiming to have more than 1.6k active RST members right now? So you're currently taking in more than £16k per annum in membership?

 

16k FB likes followers is an interesting number. Becomes a little less impressive when held up against Man Utd Supporters Trust's 23k FB likes and membership approaching 188,000.

 

Ignore the obvious reasons all you please but you know the takeup of RST membership continues to disappoint.

[plgsarmy 111]

You're claiming to have more than 1.6k active RST members right now? So you're currently taking in more than £16k per annum in membership?

 

16k FB likes followers is an interesting number. Becomes a little less impressive when held up against Man Utd Supporters Trust's 23k FB likes and membership approaching 188,000.

 

Ignore the obvious reasons all you please but you know the takeup of RST membership continues to disappoint.

 

Firstly, there are about 400 life members included in my figure so no to your monetary figure. As for FB and Twitter, I was comparing to other Rangers groups. MUST count their free e-members as members so you can't really compare that either.

[3909 04 0]

Firstly, there are about 400 life members included in my figure so no to your monetary figure. As for FB and Twitter, I was comparing to other Rangers groups. MUST count their free e-members as members so you can't really compare that either.

 

OK, so £12k per annum then. That's quite a material sum, which should be visible on the annual accounts. Plus, I wouldn't be too dismissive of MUST's free e-membership scheme. Surely the RST would love a database of 188,000 potential members?

 

The problem with the RST, even if you won't acknowledge it, is their insistence on putting a £ sign on every activity they undertake. That, plus the memory of bitter boardroom battles, their less than squeaky clean financial dealings and the continued presence of one particularly divisive figure right at the heart of the Trust, makes Bears reluctant to invest anything in an organisation supposedly set up for the benefit of fams.

 

To outsiders, it looks far more like a smug, condescending, know-it-all self-interest group.

Edited November 30, 2012 by 3909 04

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Over 75% of my supporters club were masons.

 

most rangers fans aren't in a supporters club.

[chilledbear 16]

OK, so £12k per annum then. That's quite a material sum, which should be visible on the annual accounts. Plus, I wouldn't be too dismissive of MUST's free e-membership scheme. Surely the RST would love a database of 188,000 potential members?

 

The problem with the RST, even if you won't acknowledge it, is their insistence on putting a £ sign on every activity they undertake. That, plus the memory of bitter boardroom battles, their less than squeaky clean financial dealings and the continued presence of one particularly divisive figure right at the heart of the Trust, makes Bears reluctant to invest anything in an organisation supposedly set up for the benefit of fams.

 

To outsiders, it looks far more like a smug, condescending, know-it-all self-interest group.

 

Wow.

 

That is some claim. Perhaps, to some outsiders who don't like, what's his name.

 

Anytime I read criticism about the RST, it always comes down to dislike of Dingwall. If he controls everything and everybody in the RST, it doesn't say much for people like shoredbear or plgsarmy etc.