TRVMP

I think the "who" is a premature question. We're running out of money in the new year as things stand. Is it worth hiring a new highly-paid staff member, given the likelihood of administration?

Better late than never. Correct decision.

That I'll agree with, saying there is "a vote" is insufficient. Arguably they shouldn't even be pledging it, but if they've done so, they should at least say what they have in mind.

You keep hitting this final vote thing. What final vote? Nobody's proposed any vote of any kind. Why does the MCT board need to deny a motion that doesn't exist? On what grounds can they pre-empt a member's right to raise such a motion at an EGM?

I don't think anyone's said we move on to a vote to accept or not. Doubtless someone will move for that at the EGM but someone - and I'll do it if nobody else does, assuming I can make the meeting (which as of now I can) - move to oppose that. I just don't agree that it's MCT's role to do anything here. The Consortium is responsible for presenting its case. We're not responsible for presenting its case. I think this is more likely than not. But I don't think that changes MCT's role. Setting up checkpoints for the Consortium is doing their work for them. They came to us, it's for them to make a serious offer, not for us to write one for them.

MCT have been completely transparent about the next steps. The question deadline is on Friday. Then the questions get submitted to the Consortium. Then there's the EGM on the 19th. We're supposed to arrange a vote on a non-binding document with literally dozens of unresolved conditionals, without any questions being submitted yet, much less answered? I think a lot of people are getting starstruck here. The offer as written is indistinguishable from a Nigerian prince's. It's worthless. There's nothing to vote on because there's no offer made. Why would you want a vote before the questions clear up the conditionals? FWIW I'm pretty well resigned to this happening, but at the risk of sounding dramatic, not in my name.

MCT has no business "owning" a non-binding document produced by a third party that is absolutely riddled with conditional language. The offer, as it stands, is laughably insufficient in its concrete terms (the GBP amounts) and as such any pending terms are moot.

For me, a good test of the consortium's bona fides will be the courage of their convictions. If there truly are questionable aspects of GMFC Property Ltd's ownership and corporate structure that place Morton in danger, and their bid is a partly philanthropic attempt to resolve that situation, I look forward to hearing the details from them.

The onus is on the people making an unsolicited offer to make their offer clear, not the other way around. The facts as presented are the responsibility of the buyer, and the answer to their laughable offer has to be "no way absolutely not." I'm not going to act like there's a different offer and say "oh well if something else existed it's a maybe" because nothing else does exist.

The ownership structure is: Morton Club Together Ltd. owns 100% of, GMFC Property Ltd., which owns Cappielow, and around 89% of, Greenock Morton Football Club Ltd., which owns SPFL membership, intellectual property, a shan liability of a "manager", and probably a fax machine.

It isn't "you're a day late with a bill, then you're in administration." You could conceivably muddle along for months and not enter administration. You can negotiate with your creditors, you can ask some to accept a reduced payment (to reduce your liabilites) or late payment (to punt the problem), you could get access to new lines of credit to meet existing obligations while creating a new, but later one. The idea here is that while the business is insolvent in the moment, the directors reasonably believe that they can resolve it either by reducing liabilities (via negotiation etc.), increasing income, improving immediate cashflow, or some combination of these. But if you remain insolvent with no prospect of pulling it out of the fire, eventually either the directors will be legally bound to protect existing creditors, and will enter the club into administration; OR a creditor themself will say enough is enough and take GMFC to court, at which point the court decides whether or not the club should be placed into administration. In our case - and I am very much not a lawyer - I think administration is more likely than not based on the ability of the current BoD and the prospect of our shortfall being met.

Having slept on this a bit it's sitting even worse. The fans and indeed the wider Scottish football community, and Chicago Fire, have rallied around to let him build out a squad, and this is the thanks they get. A 2-0 loss at Inverness isn't in isolation that bad of a result but as the culmination of 17 games without a win, including against non-league opposition, it's bad. And given that he's now been allowed to build a large squad with many seasoned professionals in it, the situation is bad. And yet he'll take zero responsibility for any of it.

It's not gross misconduct but it's certainly written warning material.

No stream I assume?

The short answer is yes, this would not be legally straightforward for them to do, but in any case GMFC Ltd doesn't own Cappielow. We'd need to do something incredibly stupid like sign GMFC Property Ltd. over to them for 150k for this to even be possible.