dunning1874

I think everyone can completely agree about a need for expertise on the board and fan owned not needing to mean fan run, but that change doesn't necessarily need to come with a sale. If we do ultimately say no to this then if someone like Ian Munro is willing to join the board without ownership then good; I doubt anyone is going to be attached to the idea of MCT reps needing to constitute a majority of the GMFC board.

I can't remember the exact details but it was something to do with a criminal case being outstanding over land ownership, with resolving the land ownership issue also partly being why their board at the time chose to enter administration in the first place. They thought it was the only way to escape their then owners and the criminal case about land ownership was tied up in that somehow. Just as their entering administration was voluntary rather than being forced due to being unable to pay a debt, their choice to go down a newco route was also voluntary rather than being enforced by having a CVA after attepting to exit administration voted against; if I'm remembering correctly it was actually the administrators themselves that suggested this route, which would suggest it maximised the return for creditors rather than dodging it as liquidation usually would, but as you can tell I'm very vague on the finer details. I think there was something about the criminal case being tied up in judging the size of debts meaning a CVA couldn't actually proceed until the case was settled which could be years. In terms of sporting sanction it wasn't treated any differently from any other administrations, it was still classed as an insolvency event with a 15 point deduction one season and 5 the next, but the transferring of the licence from one company to another did require the approval of both the SPFL & SFA boards. Whether they'd be willing to do the same in the event it was a club failing to agree a CVA and being liquidated as a result rather than doing it voluntairily, I don't know and hope we never find out. Though the creation of the SPFL's rules in this way with the power to approve that resting with the board alone rather than a vote of all clubs was pretty transparently an attempt to account for Rangers ever dying again and not having to start at the bottom if they did so.

If we do end up saying no, I think we do need some clear messaging about what needs to be done with fundraising. The transparency from the club on Sunday was obviously welcome in knowing exactly what the shortfall is, but if we're saying we don't want to accept money from elsewhere then we also can't wait around for a knight in shining armour as an alternative. I know it's not as simple as boiling it down to numbers because not everyone has hundreds of pounds lying spare, and many people have already increased MCT subs, contributed to the fighting fund or have valid reasons they don't want to simply make a donation rather than make a payment to get something in return, but if say 500 members were to vote against this now as we've decided the risks aren't worth the £150K, that £150K would be equal to raising £300 each from 500 members. I'm rambling a bit here because I don't entirely know the point I'm making, obviously we're all entitled to vote no to this without being required to contribute £150K ourselves and we shouldn't be blackmailed otherwise, but if there are alternative means of raising money here that don't involve risking Cappielow then we should investigate them fully.

Thanks, but to be honest I thought I made an arse of what I was trying to say and didn't get the central point across at all (public speaking is not my strong point) which was about Cappielow more than the shares. It's all well and good to say we can have a watertight contract governing what the GMFC board can and can't do with Cappielow. If that's in place then there's nothing to worry about, right? Except the consortium themselves, without anyone else floating the idea, raised in the Q&A document the suggestion of Cappielow being used as security for a loan. You can have all the restrictions in the world on what the GMFC board can and can't do with Cappielow in MCT's favour, but in the event that hypothetical loan isn't repaid then Cappielow transfers to that third party, those restrictions won't travel with it. Unless the terms explicitly forbid Cappielow being used as security for a loan - and clearly the consortium don't want that to be the case - then Cappielow is not safeguarded.

It's the transparency we need, but shocked the shortfall is still that high. With the tone of things in July I'd assumed the budget had been massively reduced again beyond the already planned reduction v last season when Dalrada's arrears increased massively, but the shortfall is actually only £15K short of Dalrada's total arrears and so Murray's budget could barely have been reduced from the original plan at all. That £15K difference between the shortfall and the Dalrada arrears comes after Moore, McLuckie, Murray and Orr moving on has seemingly brought the budget down further as well, so it wasn't even reduced by as much £15K initially? Again have to ask why on earth he was allowed to sign Carse and Robinson in light of this. So as it stands there's still a shortfall for the season of £320K, and discounting the fighting fund money is expected to be running out in December. As far as I can see the last update on the money in the fighting fund was that it was over £70K, so there's another £250K to be found. You're not going to quadruple the amount in the fighting fund that's already slowed down after the initial burst of donations and seeing the gap makes you question whether it's worth holding donations back for when things really hit the fan at the turn of the year, rather than throwing more in now if it's going to get nowhere near covering the deficit anyway. Even if we were to take the consortium's £150K out of desperation (which we absolutely shouldn't, that's just writing the club a death sentence for a different time) that would still leave a hole of £100K after the existing fighting fund money is used, meaning the consortium could choose not to fill the gap, enabling them to do their asset stripping and close the club down far more quickly then they could with their using Cappielow as security for a loan from themselves approach. To illustrate how unlikely it is for £250K to somehow fall into our laps, to make that from cup prize money beyond what we'll have budgeted for on the basis of exiting at the earliest rounds, if we were to win the Challenge Cup (£150K for the winners v £30K for a last 32 exit, so £120K up v the budget) and make the quarter final of the Scottish Cup (on the 25/26 figures that's £110K prize money plus £24K TV money v £11.25K for a third round exit, so £122,750 up) we would still be needing the gate receipts to see us over the line to the £250K. Obviously we can't just cross our fingers and blindly hope for those things to happen, and even if they did the money would come in later in the season so wouldn't fix the cashflow issues starting in December. I don't see any alternative to a firesale of the squad in January. You're not going to be getting transfer fees for anyone but doing everything possible to reduce the wage budget could at least make a dent and bring the deficit down to a more realistic level that fundraising could hope to meet, barring some philanthropist appearing with an offer to fire six figures at us out of the goodness of their heart. That would likely end any hope of survival on the park if better players are all free to go to other clubs (and did they say at the AGM that they budgeted for 8th, so ending up 10th could increase the deficit again?) but survival off it is more important.

Miller talking to the Tele: “I'm delighted, we worked on that all week. How we wanted to play, how we wanted to move and getting in behind them” That might seem a blatantly obvious statement - management team coach players on tactics at training to prepare for a game - but this is the big difference in the last couple of games. Both in and out of possession there is actually a plan for what players are supposed to be doing, where they're meant to be and how that's going to lead to creating chances. There was absolutely none of that under Murray, he'd clearly mentally checked out to such an extent that he simply wasn't bothering his arse to coach them or make a gameplan beyond "here's your formation, off you go". Now you can clearly see what the plan is and that the coaching is actually happening, it shows in how we attack and create chances, it shows in how we press as a unit and it shows in how we shut down any space in midfield in the second half yesterday. As part of a properly organised team, players who'd looked miles off it under Murray like Sandilands and Garrity are being given the platform to play really well and win us games. It's still very early days and bad results are going to come while the wins have come in two of the easier fixtures we'll have, but what a breath of fresh air to see a management team who are actually concerned with getting results and doing everything they can to help the players, rather than self-servingly throwing them under the bus in a wild attempt to protect their own reputation.

After saying at half-time how frantic and fast paced the game had been, it was really pleasing how we controlled that second half. Completely took the sting out the game and passed our way to the 2-0 win, would have made it a far more boring watch for a neutral but it was exactly the right thing to do and it's encouraging to see we're actually capable of doing that. Who could have guessed that getting rid of a dud manager could make a team better?

We've scored more in two and a half games under Miller & O'Halloran than we did in 12 under Murray. This has been so good. We're very vulnerable to conceding ourselves and giving up too much room in midfield, the game isn't won yet, but you couldn't really ask for better than this in attack. If it's the same game in the second half this could end up 5-5. Thought our penalty was a perfectly good tackle but we've also had the clearest shout turned down with the handball appeal. Two of the Queen's Park appeals were laughable but the trip while everyone was still laughing at their handball appeal did look like a foul to me.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm disputing that it's relevant to the characterisation of Estrella's decision to withdraw. Ultimately going into the AGM they did believe that via the statement they could convince members to vote for the deal, and so the deal was still alive. Instead members responded by postponing the vote, and so they withdrew. Had members not passed a resolution to postpone the vote they would not have withdrawn, in the hope that the vote opening would result in the deal being approved by members. That's an accurate representation of events regardless of what else Estrella were thinking in the days leading up to the AGM. I don't want to get too far into a semantic discussion here and stray away from the point but I think the use of the word "refute" here is pertinent. Yes, if you're using the dictionary definition of refute then neither MCT or GMFC have refuted Estrella's claims in the statement, as they have not presented evidence that factually proves Estrella's claims to be untrue; equally, Estrella have not refuted MCT & GMFC's claims that Estrella weren't telling the truth in the statement, because Estrella have also not presented any evidence to factually prove the points MCT/GMFC contested either. What MCT & GMFC board members did do was dispute a significant number of claims Estrella made in the statement. At the AGM they immediately denied several points, and specifically on the Dalrada arrears said that they had a paper trail proving that Estrella's version of events as presented in the statement was untrue. Ultimately both sides claimed to have evidence to support their version of events and neither has shared it with MCT members; only one party threatened legal action against the other that could feasibly scare the other away from sharing evidence, and that leads to obvious speculation about why they would want to do so. It's a fairly standard logical thread to follow that the party threatening legal action in that scenario don't want the evidence to see the light of the day because it disproves their claims and that's their motivation for a legal threat. Maybe that's not the case, I don't know, but in the absence of the evidence Occam's razor is all I've got. It is baffling to me to the point of incredulity that they would decide to go fully scorched earth with such an incendiary statement at the AGM in response to the wording of the email, and at no point in the 54 hours between the email being sent and the AGM see the email for themselves. So they find out on Saturday, via a phone call due to the person informing them having no access to emails at the time. Fair enough. At no point in the course of drafting the statement or at any other time in that 54 hours did they ask yourself or any other MCT member they were in contact with to forward the email they were responding to onto them so they could see the wording for themselves? They didn't immediately raise this breach of the NDA with the MCT board directly and ask to see the contents of the email? They only got it on the Tuesday once they'd decided, for the final time, to withdraw? It makes very little sense that they wouldn't they want to see it as a matter of urgency in order to compose their response. My point above about the Dalrada arrears and evidence takes us to the screenshot you've shared, and I've said all along that if any proof is presented that any or all MCT or GMFC board members lied to either the membership or Estrella then I'll call for their immediate resignations. Yes, this proves beyond any doubt that Estrella were on a call about the full size of the arrears as they stood on 10 August and had that figure confirmed to them in writing on 11 August. The comment in the Estrella statement at the AGM that they became aware of the full extent of the arrears on 10 August is therefore true. Is this the same thing as MCT, GMFC or both deliberately misleading them by having concealed the total arrears from them prior to that date? If that's because that figure for arrears had been the case for weeks or months and MCT and/or GMFC simply didn't disclose it, then yes, that's a lie and a resignation matter for the lot of them. If it's because the total arrears figure had changed recently prior to 10 August - from the club's update of 16 August they said Dalrada only paid £7K for July, and from the 4 September update they failed to make any payments for August, but without knowing what dates payments were contractually expected to be made we can't say if that was being sat on before taking it to Estrella or was brought to them reasonably quickly - then that's a consequence of changing information. If it's the latter that does of course still mean Estrella were justified in a last minute change to their investment because the financial picture became so much more severe, but that doesn't mean they were lied to or had information withheld, whereas the former does. I'm going off a combination of memory and the notes I tried to frantically take down through the course of the statement and rebuttals at the AGM which undoubtedly missed a lot so in the absence of a recording I may be mistaken, but when it came to rebuttals after the statement, the part the MCT board were taking issue with was Estrella saying they were unaware of any Dalrada arrears until July; they claimed this was untrue, that as part of the due diligence process Dalrada's arrears at that time were fully disclosed and this included financial statements which showed Dalrada's arrears, and they had the paper trail to prove this. I think Graham Barr also interjected at this point to say a full transcript of a call between the GMFC board and Dalrada about missed payments was shared with Estrella as well, but I didn't get a note of when he said that was, if he did at all. The messages above don't disprove that. They do prove that the situation was changing at the last minute and Estrella were therefore justified in making last minute changes (and personally I still thought £600K for 35% of the club was a huge sum of money anyway even though I had concerns about the extent of the veto power, so I didn't mind that reduction from £750K). They do not prove that Estrella were being lied to prior to this.

Even if every other word in this post is true, that statement is irrefutably factually correct (other than characterising it as a huff being an opinion). The statement was read, the members at the AGM passed a resolution to postpone the vote in the aftermath, and Estrella withdrew after the vote was postponed. These are objective facts. If they were doing the hokey cokey for several days before with withdrawing then deciding not to, whether they were justified in doing so or not, that does not change the reality they only publicly withdrew after the vote was postponed and not before. Their own statement on the matter explicitly said the vote not going ahead was the reason they withdrew: https://estrellafootball.group/news/estrella-football-group-withdraws-from-proposed-investment-in-greenock-morton-fc "As a direct result of the outcome of this week's members' meeting of Morton Club Together (MCT), Estrella Football Group is withdrawing from its proposed investment in Greenock Morton Football Club." "with this week's vote on the proposal not going ahead, Estrella unfortunately has no choice but to step back from the deal." If they have documentation which proves their claims to be true, why would they not share it? Proof that the MCT board were lying would unquestionably lead to widespread demands for a vote of no confidence in the directors proven to have lied, a vote those directors would lose in a landslide if they didn't immediately resign. This would then have opened the door for a new MCT board Estrella could trust to see the deal to completion - they wouldn't even have had to wait for new elections for this outcome, considering who was elected the same night. Instead they withdrew from the process without presenting evidence, and if Graham McLennan is to be believed, they threatened legal action over the the NDA being broken by MCT: a course of action which would likely scare MCT off from ever publishing any documentation about timelines themselves, knowing Estrella might respond with further legal threats. Do you see why that looks suspicious to people? Estrella's own statement of 11 September explicitly stated the following about that email: "An incomplete Investment Agreement was issued to MCT members without Estrella's knowledge or consent, contrary to the arrangements that had been agreed and in breach of the NDA governing the process. In addition, the proposal was communicated by MCT as giving Estrella "majority control over GMFC whilst being a minority shareholder". Estrella did not see these communications until 18 August." By Estrella's own version of events they didn't see this email until Tuesday 18 August, after the AGM on Monday 17 August. If what you're saying here is true about them threatening to withdraw on the Saturday 15 August and deciding to drafting the statement to be read at the AGM in response to that email, then Estrella lied in their statement of 11 September.

Someone on P&B has picked up that the author of the McLennan/McMaster statement in Microsoft Word is not, in fact, Graham McLennan or John McMaster.

Considering their conduct at the AGM and since I think everything points to us dodging a bullet in not having Estrella involved with the club, but it is absolutely wild to say this is a more serious offer than Estrella. It's considerably worse in every respect.

Everyone being united to kick the consortium dogshit out is the most important thing so reluctant to go to the same detail on the competing statements from different MCT board members, but broadly there's a Thomas Francis shaped flaw in the McLennan and McMaster statement. If the existing MCT board were so disorganised and incompetent that there was no communication with new directors joining the board amid total failures of governance, to the point that working with them is "untenable" and they felt they had no choice but to first ask for their resignations then try to start a coup when that offer was refused, why is another new board member who was elected at the same time as McLennan & McMaster putting his name to a statement alongside those existing board members? A statement that not only disputes McLennan & McMaster's characterisation of events but explicitly raises concerns about "Graham McLennan's behaviour"? The examples they give of issues they've seen are very light on specifics as well, and where there is something specific it's extremely flimsy. The Estrella deal not going to a vote was the choice of members at the AGM to vote for postponement (a resolution that Graham McLennan & John McMaster didn't vote against) then Estrella taking the huff and doing a runner in response. Take that up with your pals in Estrella whose own statement at the AGM blew it up. Also as an aside, once again in this statement legal action by Estrella is mentioned; are we supposed to be sad that people who were seriously considering legal action against us didn't gain a stake in the club? The offer of £120K-150K brought by Gordon Ritchie has already been proven to be completely unserious nonsense which couldn't be taken to the membership, by Gordon Ritchie's own public telling of events. Also trying not to be too judgemental, we've seen MCT emails go out with errors as well, but there are so many grammatical issues in their statement that I can't even figure out what they're trying to say in some places. The justification for the underhanded whatsapp message (a justification given after claiming they have no idea why members have submitted votes of no confidence in them) is totally muddled. As for the "we volunteered for this vote, will anyone else?!" attempt to muddy the waters, nice try. John McMaster can make that claim to martyrdom if he likes as he's done it without the requests for a VONC in him meeting the 10% threshold, but Graham McLennan would be facing this vote regardless of whether he wanted to because the 10% threshold was met. It's happening because the members demanded it whether he liked it or not, not because of his decency in putting himself forward for it.

So, the consortium open with: "We would like to make it absolutely clear that our involvement with Greenock Morton Football Club is not driven by any intention to take over the club or to purchase GMFC. We are not coming forward with an agenda, nor are we looking to take control of the club." This is complete nonsense. You are literally trying to purchase GMFC and take majority control of the club by asking for 60%. It is blatantly false to claim otherwise. "We appreciate that supporters and members of the board may naturally have questions about our intentions, and we believe it is important to be transparent from the outset." You've already failed to do that, we don't even know who four of you are! "We have not approached GMFC with demands or a list of conditions. We have not said that we want to buy the club, take it over or dictate its future direction." You are literally offering to buy 60% of the club! That is buying it, taking it over and having the power to dictate its future direction! "A 60% shareholding is our minimum requirement." So you claim to not have any demands or conditions, you claim to not be wanting control of the club, when you are in fact demanding majority control? Do you think everyone buttons up the back?! "What is the minimum MCT contribution required for the consortium's £150,000 commitment to continue, and how does this reconcile with the consortium's stated assumption of primary responsibility for future funding? The minimum required contribution is £12,500." So this confirms, MCT have to pay the exact same amount as the consortium at a minimum to dilute their shareholding and lose majority control of the club along with ownership of Cappielow as the consortium have to pay to gain all of the above, and when MCT payments inevitably drop below that level the funding from the consortium will immediately stop. This is absolutely outrageous, it's genuinely offensive to expect anyone to accept this disgrace. "We would want Cappielow to remain available as potential security should additional funding ever be required through a bank loan or a loan from one of the consortium members. In such circumstances, a standard security over the stadium could be considered. This is not to suggest that such borrowing will necessarily be required, but we believe the option should remain available as a standard means of financing a business." The GMFC board never being able to jeopardise the future of Cappielow in this fashion is exactly why it's been moved to a separate company to protect it. This can never be allowed to happen. Nice touch as well to float the idea of it being a consortium member who provides the loan secured against Cappielow. So the consortium can get majority control of the club, have a loan from one of that consortium secured against Cappielow, wind down funding themselves, oversee the club they control failing to make repayments on that loan, and oh look, now a consortium member owns Cappielow themselves! How convenient! "During the contracting phase we would agree a contractual structure that provides MCT confirmation that Cappielow would not be sold and only used for football." Doesn't stop you using it for security as a loan though that could make this invalid though? Or charging an extortionate rent once you've seized control of it if you can't go as far as demolishing it to grab the land? "4 of the consortium members have asked for their identities to be kept anonymous at this stage. This is in part due to the negative social media directed to some of the other consortium members. All members will be identified prior to the final vote." This is transparent bullshit. How could they have wanted to withhold their identities when the consortium was first announced due to negative social media attention towards other consortium members, when no one knew who the other members were then either? It's clearly total nonsense. Announcing the rest of their identities only after an initial due diligence vote is also not acceptable. It couldn't be more obvious that the point of this consortium is an asset grab and they couldn't care less about what's good for Morton. Letting them into the club would be a death sentence, this needs to be stopped on Monday.

Huge MCT update has just landed with the sign up for Monday's meeting, the responses from the consortium to questions put to them, confirmation that George Anderson has resigned while a vote of no confidence will be held in Graham McLennan & John McMaster, a statement from Graham McLennan and John McMaster and a statement from the rest of the MCT board. Going to take a lot of time to go through everything, but it's only taken two sentences from the consortium to reach a nonsensical and blatantly untrue claim.