Where Has

[cmdc]

Are you saying that refunds have previously been made?

 

Right. I'm suffering financial hardship as I haven't been paid for months and the banks won't lend to small businesses unless I give them a kidney. I'll accept a cheque or alternatively £500 worth of shares in Morton at the cost price.

 

Blimey, your cheque is in the post. Just don't tell Edwards...

[dirty dingus]

Just out of interest. Did Dougie not just make up more shares at one time to raise money to put up the rusty rivet commeretive stand. If he issued more shares would the 500 quid worth of shares be worth 500 quid. You know what I mean.

[Guest David Edwards]

Blimey, your cheque is in the post. Just don't tell Edwards...

 

Aye, "objectively" handled with "sensitivity and confidentiality". That's what the Trust is famous for.

[TAFKAC]

That was probably sloppy wording, late at night on my part. The point is that in order for someone to be refunded, they would be required to show evidence of severe financial hardship, and we can therefore justify that objectively to the Trust members and other loan note holders. The integirty of the scheme itself would not be jeopardised as the bar would be set high before repayment could be authorised (and indeed this has happened in the past).

 

However, if we were to make each individual's 'confidence' in the Trust the criteria (changing the terms of the agreement which both the lender and GMST voluntarily entered in to), then the integrity of the loan note scheme itself would be damaged. We wouldn't know from one day to the next who has confidence in the Trust and who does not. It would be difficult to justify repayment on that basis to members, and to provide any sort of objective justification which would ensure the security of the investments made in the scheme.

 

On those from further afield (TAFKAC/Alibi): yes, of course someone can be appointed to represent their views. Similarly, there is no reason why a report of the meeting could not be distributed to those members who were unable to attend.

If anything you've made me feel slightly less comfortable than I did before reading Alibi's input. In effect, you are saying that there is no objective test for financial hardship - it is dependent on the view of the current committee. That leaves me with another couple of questions, which I hope you'll accept in the frame of them being general and pertinent to all note holders:

 

How legally enforceable is your understanding of the contract that note holders entered into?

What is the potential liability to the trust if note holders all claimed financial hardship?

How far would the trust go in ascertaining levels of financial hardship, and how does this fit in with current legislation such as DPA and FOI?

 

I understand completely if you can't answer these questions, but I am genuinely concerned about where this may all lead.

 

Anybody want to be my proxy?

[Tonsilitis]

It might help people to understand why loan note holders are "locked in" by reference to the figures. The December 2010 accounts reveal that we have spent £119k in acquiring shares in GMFC over the ten or so years of the trust. In the same period we have received £110k in loan notes. Irrelevant to the discussion on loan notes is the fact that we have also donated £25k mostly to youth football in the same period.

 

As CDMC says, the money received from loans and more, has all been spent in acquiring shares in GMFC which was the purpose people advanced the money for in the first place. Those shares are not easily turned back into money and, indeed, given the rate at which Morton have been losing money over the last few years, it is questionable whether they are now worth what we paid for them. This is something we will have to consider for the next accounts.

 

In other words, the trust does not have the money to repay loan note holders because it was spent for the purpose it was advanced for in the first place.

 

Re Alibi's suggestion that we could distribute shares rather than cash, Morton are a private company and every share transfer has to be approved by their board. There is no guarantee DDFR would approve such transfers.

 

Finally the comment that the court case proceeded on half truths and innuendo is rubbish propagated by a third party who has an underlying agenda which is totally removed from defending Jim Gallacher. A comprehensive accounting exercise was undertaken using such hard facts as were available including knowing, for example, what drink was purchased to the last can of coke from supplier invoices and knowing what the selling prices were on the night. Where evidence was not available, the benefit of the doubt has been given. Our case was reviewed by our lawyers and we acted on their advice throughout.

 

Due to another matter not revealed to the trust when it should have been, it is unlikely that this evidence will now be heard in court and the case is now sisted but as far as I am concerned any "half truths and innuendo" have not emanated from the people on the trust in charge of the case. Our figures have been rubbished without putting forward any alternatives that stand scrutiny.

 

As for the scare stories of tens of thousands of pounds being awarded against the trust, that's what they are - scare stories. My own opinion is that there has never been any possibility of that and its all simply part of the scare tactics employed to do everything they can to damage the trust. I will concede though, that they have damaged the trust when good people like Alibi, TiD and Dave Edwards, all seem to have taken in, at least in part, the propaganda from the other side!

[Rasta Ton]

Please loan me money to buy shares on the basis I'll only ever pay you back if you grovel in an Oliver Twist like fashion. Hardly a loan is it? Oh and when I do pay it back it will not have accrued any interest whatsoever despite the fact that the shares purchased with the money are now more valuable than the initial investment.

 

Talk about a one sided contract.

 

Regardless of whether or not the loan notes have been used for their intended purpose, the fact is they were given as an investment in the trust. Do those investors not have a right to withdraw their money if they no longer have confidence in the Trust?

[EanieMeany]

I personally find it disgraceful that the Trust forced people into signing contracts without allowing them to read and understand it properly. Shocking behaviour

 

Incidentally, most of the stuff on here is raking up the past. From what I've read and heard, the new look board seem to be going very much in the right direction and perhaps people should stop and listen to them first before rabbiting on and on about the same old things.

[cmdc]

Please loan me money to buy shares on the basis I'll only ever pay you back if you grovel in an Oliver Twist like fashion. Hardly a loan is it? Oh and when I do pay it back it will not have accrued any interest whatsoever despite the fact that the shares purchased with the money are now more valuable than the initial investment.

 

Talk about a one sided contract.

 

Regardless of whether or not the loan notes have been used for their intended purpose, the fact is they were given as an investment in the trust. Do those investors not have a right to withdraw their money if they no longer have confidence in the Trust?

 

If you put it like that...

 

But let's not pretend there is unfairness here. These agreements are fairly standard, they were voluntarily entered in to, the money has been used in good faith and exclusively for its intended purpose. No need to grovel, but in genuine cases of severe financial hardship we have the discretion to repay, and have done so - without controversy - in the past.

[Tonsilitis]

Please loan me money to buy shares on the basis I'll only ever pay you back if you grovel in an Oliver Twist like fashion. Hardly a loan is it? Oh and when I do pay it back it will not have accrued any interest whatsoever despite the fact that the shares purchased with the money are now more valuable than the initial investment.

 

Talk about a one sided contract.

 

Regardless of whether or not the loan notes have been used for their intended purpose, the fact is they were given as an investment in the trust. Do those investors not have a right to withdraw their money if they no longer have confidence in the Trust?

 

This is mostly wrong.

 

I have explained above why loan notes have to be locked in. They were used to acquire a non liquid asset. Morton is a private company and we cannot simply sell shares to order. There has to be a buyer and then the sale transaction has to be approved by the board of GMFC before it can go through. It is not like selling shares in a listed company.

 

Could you repay your mortgage on demand? Could you repay your mortgage without being able to sell your house? The answer is probably no to both questions but fortunately, if you keep your end of the bargain with the building society, the building society can't demand repayment. In our case, the trust has kept its end of the bargain with its lenders, the loan note holders in that we used their money to buy shares in Morton.

 

We have of course the provision that we can opt to repay a loan note in cases of genuine financial hardship and have done so in the past but the decision rests with the board and each case is taken on its merits.

 

As for the shares being more valuable, Morton have been losing North of £400k per annum for years now. Those losses were re-capitalised by Golden Casket but not for the last few years. Their loan will currently be at least £1.5m and every years losses increase that and reduce the value of our shares more. We have reached the position now that in this year's accounts the shares may have to be reduced to below their cost price because of the state of GMFC's finances.

[Rhubarb Mess]

If you put it like that...

 

But let's not pretend there is unfairness here. These agreements are fairly standard, they were voluntarily entered in to, the money has been used in good faith and exclusively for its intended purpose. No need to grovel, but in genuine cases of severe financial hardship we have the discretion to repay, and have done so - without controversy - in the past.

 

That would be the single 500 that was repaid then. I presume they went through this 'hardship' test?

 

This is mostly wrong.

 

I have explained above why loan notes have to be locked in. They were used to acquire a non liquid asset. Morton is a private company and we cannot simply sell shares to order. There has to be a buyer and then the sale transaction has to be approved by the board of GMFC before it can go through. It is not like selling shares in a listed company.

 

 

Could it be detailed what exactly these shares power is? If they are effectively worthless in that respect sell them nack to DDF. He may well just continue to dilute them anyway until we get to a stage where the trusts shares are almost negative in their value.

[Fellow Traveller]

I assume that this refers to the GMST (is it a limited company?). My reading of the situation is that the Trust has been a bit of a shambles for years, although I understand there have been changes in the board recently that might make a difference. Many of us who joined at the start and lent money to the Trust received no notice of meetings, no reminders that membership subscriptions were either required annually or due, and in fact no correspondence whatsoever. In essence we more or less forgot that the Trust existed. I now find that the Trust has got itself into a position where it is possibly potentially exposed to massive legal costs. I lent £500 to the Trust some years ago, money that I could really do with now, and to have that money maybe handed over to solicitors over what is really a pretty minor financial disagreement shrouded in mystery doesn't fill me with confidence in the judgement of anyone on either side of the dispute.

 

Let me be frank. I would like my money back before it disappears into a solicitor's offshore bank account. I was happy to lend money to a Trust that did what is was supposed to do, but I am not happy to support an ill-advised civil court case as seems to be happening here. I have been told that to get your money back you have to claim financial hardship. I can't in all honesty claim that, but to me that is a get out clause. It's time this ongoing dispute was put to bed. I have contact with both sides in this dispute and it's clear there is a degree of anger involved. This is turning into Jarndyce v Jarndyce, so can anyone with the authority to do so tell me (and others who are in a similar position) exactly why we can't get our money out before it's p1ssed up against the wall of the court toilets? Why the feck was this allowed to get to this stage without anyone having the courtesy to let the lenders know what was going on?

 

I take no sides in the dispute as I don't know who is right and who is wrong, and I don't much care.

Your assumption that the Trust is a limited company is correct The Greenock Morton Supporters Society Limited is its full name.

I doubt if you or anyone else will find anyone arguing about the poor quality of communication between the Trust board and the members, its loan note holders and Supporters in General in the past. I have certainly commented on it on this board several times before and fully accept my part as a board member. I think the fact that there are now more and newer board members will help that in the future.

Any time an organisation enters into litigation there is always the possibility that it will lose the case. However, that doesn't mean that an organisation should never enter legal proceedings. Provided the potential outcome outweighs the potential risks and that the risks are minimised and that appropriate advice is taken and followed

then I think its the right thing to do and in fact I think there are times when for a board not to do so may expose them to being sued by shareholders.

As I said already, the members have been updated at I think 3 general meetings. I dont think I would lend £500 to an organisation and then let my £10 per year membership lapse.........................FT

[TRVMP]

This is a genuine question: can anyone think of a better, fairer - for both the Trust and Loan Note holders - method of authorising repayment than the 'severe financial hardship' method?

[TAFKAC]

Your assumption that the Trust is a limited company is correct The Greenock Morton Supporters Society Limited is its full name.

I doubt if you or anyone else will find anyone arguing about the poor quality of communication between the Trust board and the members, its loan note holders and Supporters in General in the past. I have certainly commented on it on this board several times before and fully accept my part as a board member. I think the fact that there are now more and newer board members will help that in the future.

Any time an organisation enters into litigation there is always the possibility that it will lose the case. However, that doesn't mean that an organisation should never enter legal proceedings. Provided the potential outcome outweighs the potential risks and that the risks are minimised and that appropriate advice is taken and followed

then I think its the right thing to do and in fact I think there are times when for a board not to do so may expose them to being sued by shareholders.

As I said already, the members have been updated at I think 3 general meetings. I dont think I would lend £500 to an organisation and then let my £10 per year membership lapse.........................FT

A fair point, and something I tried to remedy. I shall try again.

[Fellow Traveller]

We already know no 'criminality' took place (the other ongoing cases will no doubt deal with that allegation) but for the life of me I cannot understand the very public way people from the board handled this 'problem' from day one. It showed at least a lack of common sense and at most a very bitter and twisted campaign.

Your previous trust chairman agreed with a statement alluding to theft, the fact 2 board members stated there was theft and by whom, and the fact the chairman agreed with this completely contradicts your statement that "Based on that neither I nor the Trust have made any allegations of any kind of criminality against anyone". In everyone's eyes but the trusts it was for all intent and purposes the trust viewpoint.Thankfully most of those who acted like this have gone, even though it took near on a year and a half of them hanging on by their finger nails before they finally realised they were causing the trust a very slow death.

Its not quite dead yet but isn't far off at times.

 

There is no doubt in my mind who was responsibly for the public smear campaign and the kangaroo court and no matter the outcome that will forever sit very uneasy with many of the Morton support if conversations I have had over the past couple of years are anything to go by...i still get people asking me what went on, even though I didn't attend. If I knew for a fact i'd go to the Police station myself. But one mans missing pound and another mans missing fortune are one and the same, steal a pound or steal a grand its still theft, but it looks like we will never get a conviction for what went on that night

 

Hopefully this comes to a conclusion sooner rather than later and I hope even more that the Morton fans can club together as we do all have the same hopes...that Morton prosper.

Nothing in what you say contradicts my statement.

Boards of all companies are made up of individuals who have differing views. Nothing that a trust board member does or says in a private and individual capacity represents the views or policy of the Trust and everything posted on here by a Trust board member, unless it is expressly quoting a decision made by a Trust board meeting, should ever have been assumed to be the position of the Trust. In fact on several occassions Trust board members went out of their way to make it clear that they were expressing personal opinions. I think it may have suited some people (not you) to deliberately confuse this......................FT

[Fellow Traveller]

I wouldn't think FT would be regarded as a 'usual suspect'.

 

There was a point made about what went on being nothing to do with the trust. I think that deserved an answer and when you see folk like WDE be so despondent it say's a lot.

 

I genuinely hope we can see something coming out of this with some sort of structure that really does represent a wider base of fans who go to games. Now that would be progress.

RM, I dont know what you mean by what went on so I dont know if it had anything to do with the Trust so I dont really know what answer it deserves or from whom?!.................FT

[Fellow Traveller]

OK, fair enough, but why is this whole business mired in secrecy? We've all been given the mushroom treatment. In fact we haven't even been fed the sh1te, just kept totally in the dark.

As I have said already quite a few members and other Morton supporters have been fed more than they ever wanted to know about this.

Seriously though, 3 General meetings in the last 18 months, 2 in the last 6 months. Ample opportunity for any aggrieved member to raise their concerns..............................FT

[Fellow Traveller]

WDE has a good point - why should we not just have bought shares in Morton directly? I would like to be a shareholder in Morton and attend meetings. Might even get co-opted on to the board and get to sit in the directors box if I put in enough money.

 

This whole thing just reminds me again why I hate committees and anything that involves protocols, taking minutes, standing orders, petty sniping and trivial arguments about points of order and all that sort of boring stuff. Far better to appoint someone who has some idea what they are supposed to be doing and let them get on with it. No slight intended on any trust board members past or present by the way. I'm sure we all have the same goal in mind and that's to see Morton prosper and succeed.

 

BTW a meeting of loan note holders is all very well, but some of us have to travel a long way to get to Greenock - I think we have one note holder in Oz or NZ.

Some people have an ideological opposition to the whole idea of Trusts which are put in place as cooperative movements and which by their nature tend to be on the left of the political spectrum where they try to bring ordinary supporters together to try to provide a voice for them in dealing with what in many cases are majority shareholders. They are generally disliked by people who take a different political view of the world and this tends to include many football club chairmen..................................FT

[Fellow Traveller]

Refreshing thread.

Some contradictory statements in the thread though.On one hand we have FT advises he thought everything aside the Stars business was open season on here in regards to the trust (even then the stars was discussed) and then we have cmdc stating the question of getting the £500 back is not for discussion here.

 

Chris, what if people have just lost confidence in the trust and its nothing at all to do with innuendo? WDE is a perfect example, the guy clearly has no axe to grind, nor has he been engulfed by all this s***e, so if he has asked can he have it back (and I doubt very much the trust can give anything back anyway) why should he be lumped in with anyone who may or may not believe other parties?

 

Could the trust sell the ultimately worthless shares back to DDF and divvy the dough back up among loan note holders? or are they best retained to prevent any dealings that the fans do not care for (selling Cappielow etc|). What exactly does the loan note provide to the individual who invested?

 

It certainly seems to me that DDF has and will ignore this tiny representation and may even have only sold shares to pocket some funds.

Dont tell me your surprised that FT and cmdc have different views on some things and that sometimes these are contradictory. Everybody is entitled to their own personal view. The Trust is a democracy and even when a majority express their view that doesn't mean the minority are forced to agree................FT

[Alibi]

Some people have an ideological opposition to the whole idea of Trusts which are put in place as cooperative movements and which by their nature tend to be on the left of the political spectrum where they try to bring ordinary supporters together to try to provide a voice for them in dealing with what in many cases are majority shareholders. They are generally disliked by people who take a different political view of the world and this tends to include many football club chairmen..................................FT

 

I don't have any ideological opposition to Trusts; it's just that I find that any organisation that runs on a committee basis tends to be inefficient as every meeting starts with a debate on whether it's to be plain or milk chocolate Hobnobs with the tea.

 

Thanks to Nick for giving indicative figures of the amount of the loan notes. That does put into scale the bank balance which I assume has been boosted by other income apart from the loan note money. The shares will have been diluted over the years as that's what happens when companies need to issue more shares to raise cash. Only if Morton can run at a profit will the value ever go up.

 

Regarding the comment about lending £500 and then letting your trust membership lapse: people might have renewed had they been sent a reminder. most people have a lot more to remember than when their Trust membership elapsed, especially when they get no communication whatsoever despite providing an email address to allow communications to be sent at no cost to the trust. I would suggest that trust members are given monthly reports/minutes in future and are sent reminders about payments.

 

Regarding the prospect of huge legal bills, can I ask on what basis the solicitors are engaged? What are their terms of engagement? Are these availbale for members to see? Is it on an hourly basis - because if so, how are they preparing a case in the few hours that you would get for the £500 or £1000 or whatever it was that has been mentioned as the fee exposure.

 

As I have said before: a baseball bat is a lot cheaper than a solicitor. Or the case could have been settled using rock paper scissors. Just as likely to get the correct verdict.

[Fellow Traveller]

Just out of interest. Did Dougie not just make up more shares at one time to raise money to put up the rusty rivet commeretive stand. If he issued more shares would the 500 quid worth of shares be worth 500 quid. You know what I mean.

1. Morton did indeed have a share issue where some of the money which was to be raised was to be used to erect the stand at the WDE. Of the 1 million shares available only 11,766 were sold as of 30th May 2010 raising less than £9000. Only 200 had been sold in the year to may 2010.

If my memory is correct I asked about this at the AGM at the end of 2009 and was assured by the chairman and the stadium director that the stand would go ahead whether the shares were sold or not.

2. Depends on whether the shares sell or not and at what price they sell. Share are only worth what someone will pay for them. Know what I mean.........................FT