Jings - Leggoland

[craig 5,199]

Dear Gersave member, we are not giving you your own money back because you are not dead. That would have been popular.

 

 

By the way,

 

Rules of the scheme supercede popular demands, whether you or I like it or not.

 

So you act outwith the rules and your defence is "aye, but to not break the rules would have been unpopular". Change the rules and THEN make refunds. Dont just make refunds that you know cannot be made under the terms.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

some people threatened to involve the fsa if they didnt get a refund. others made out it was impossible like their money had been stolen despite having had a full refund.

 

im not sure not refunding was an option. thats just some of the cases i know of personally.

[craig 5,199]

some people threatened to involve the fsa if they didnt get a refund. others made out it was impossible like their money had been stolen despite having had a full refund.

 

im not sure not refunding was an option. thats just some of the cases i know of personally.

 

The rules of the scheme said no refunds allowed, right ? Involving the FSA would likely have ended with the contributor still not getting a refund - though not sure as people SHOULD be able to be refunded uninvested money.

 

Still doesnt change the fact that the rules were broken

[plgsarmy 111]

Instead of being facetious you might want to have taken a look at the Gersave rules in place at the time. If BH is correct that the rules of the scheme didnt allow refunds unless on death then the Board were derelict in their duties in actually refunding.

 

Surely those who made contributions were also given a copy of the schemes rules ? If so, all you actually needed to do was inform them that a refund couldnt be made under the terms of the scheme and then point them to the relevant section or Article.

 

Your explanation is a very poor attempt at giving reason why refunds should be made and, in fact, rather than defending the RST makes them look even more foolish for making refunds that were clearly not allowed to be made under the Gersave rules.

 

Assuming BH's account is accurate of course.

 

Craig, I was being facetious (if that's how you want to describe it) due to the wording of BH's post. I administered Gersave in the way it was shown to me when it was handed over in 2008. The rules also stated that we would buy shares on a monthly basis and that didn't happen because there were perfectly good reasons not to do this, namely the price we were expected to pay. Death was not the only reason that people could get a refund (or their estate to be correct). If they resigned membership of the Trust they could also be refunded but the Board voted against implementing that. People were coming to us due to financial difficulties and we agreed that it would be wrong to ask them to leave the Trust in these circumstances.

[plgsarmy 111]

By the way,

 

Rules of the scheme supercede popular demands, whether you or I like it or not.

 

So you act outwith the rules and your defence is "aye, but to not break the rules would have been unpopular". Change the rules and THEN make refunds. Dont just make refunds that you know cannot be made under the terms.

 

Confusion arises when people only post things that suit their agenda Craig. I've never heard any kind of scheme that says you can only get a refund if you are dead. That would have been hard to sell.

[Bluedell 5,366]

At the time when I was Secretary of the Trust in late 2009 I identified that there were issues with the Gersave Scheme regarding: Definitions, Purchases, Repayment of Contributions, Interest and Administrators; the most serious of which in my opinion was that contributions were being refunded to members in circumstances other than on death, such refunds were not allowed under the rules of the scheme.

 

Point me to the rule that stated refunds of contributions were not allowed other than on death.

 

Rule 14.1 states when contributions MUST be made but they are not precluded from being made at other times anywhere in the rules.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,366]

The rules of the scheme said no refunds allowed, right ? Involving the FSA would likely have ended with the contributor still not getting a refund - though not sure as people SHOULD be able to be refunded uninvested money.

 

Still doesnt change the fact that the rules were broken

 

It's not a fact. The rules don't state that.

[Kenzie1 0]

he keeps saying fans are the ones who can stand up against the haters and make the difference. he obviously doesnt know our support. we have sat back and let our owners, the authorities and our haters rip the heart and soul out of club for the last 10 years and done nothing about it.

 

How very true and if we continue in the same vein, we will deserve all that will come our way.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

that's what I really love about these threads. if you don't know sometho.g for sure yourself your forced to discount everything that's said until bluedell comes along with the truth.

 

the sheer volume of anti rst propeganda that goes about is incredible.

[3909 04 0]

that's what I really love about these threads. if you don't know sometho.g for sure yourself your forced to discount everything that's said until bluedell comes along with the truth.

 

the sheer volume of anti rst propeganda that goes about is incredible.

 

Stirring stuff. Does it ever occur to you that the RST is seen as a good idea which has thus far failed comprehensively in its aims, chiefly because of the singular lack of trust on the part of most of the support in the Trust's long-standing key figures?

 

I've no doubt Bluedell will rush on to refute my contention but his denial makes the facts no less true.