Supporters Uniting

[Guest David Edwards]

1 There is no such claim of right, you've made that up;

 

No I didn't. That's always been part of GMST's pose

 

2 GMST has no seat on the board;

Not now but you have had in the past. 2 in succession if I recall correctly.

 

3 The GMST board doesn't claim to be representative of the Morton support, only of it's members;

 

Thanks for that. I've heard that confession is good for the soul.

 

4 The GMST board is elected by it's members and accountable to them.

Yeah. Elected unopposed.

 

 

You say we have no right, but what right do you have to say of me and colleagues you've never or barely met that we're obsessed with power, control and self aggrandisement? I've no issue with criticism, but these are baseless cheap shots. I genuinely thought better of you than that. How much power, control and self aggrandisement do you think is possible on the GMST board!?

 

What right? That'll be the right of free speech. How much power, control and self aggrandisement? About as much as you can grab for yourself I'd guess.

[cornbeef]

Welcome them to what, that's my point. If it's GMST then forget it.

 

 

David. I wish you would. I generally agree with your take on things but there are surely better targets for your self righteousness than the bunch of guys trying to get things back on the road for the trust. If I had the £500 to give you, I probably would.

 

 

 

 

[Guest David Edwards]

David. I wish you would. I generally agree with your take on things but there are surely better targets for your self righteousness than the bunch of guys trying to get things back on the road for the trust. If I had the £500 to give you, I probably would.

 

Given GMST's conduct over the past two years coupled with its continuing refusal to admit any collective responsibility for shambles past and present, then if you're going to accuse anybody of self righteousness I'd suggest there's a bigger, much easier target.

[chrissiboi]

David. I wish you would. I generally agree with your take on things but there are surely better targets for your self righteousness than the bunch of guys trying to get things back on the road for the trust. If I had the £500 to give you, I probably would.

 

I wonder if those who are in full support of the Trust's actions over the last 2 years are loan note holders. It seems obvious to me that those who do support these actions should put their money up and allow anyone sceptical the option to withdraw from the scheme.

 

The Trust then still maintain their shareholding while those who aided the purchasing of shares can obtain their money which helped to set up the system.

 

Not unreasonable and allows those who maybe were not in a position at that time to take up the scheme to do so now.

 

 

[Gourock Morton Supporters]

I'm twisting nothing Jim but sure, I'll admit to a distrust of the Trust. And it's the Trust's 'umbrella' that I object to.

 

Davie I don't know how many times someone needs to say thins before some people will take it in but if the new group gets off the ground the trust will have no more control, say or clout than anyone or group or individual.

What I meant about them being congratulated was they are the ones who are trying to get it up and running, nothing more or nothing less.

 

One final point is I can assure you the last thing I am is a trust apologist, I'm sure the guys from the trust will confirm that. I'm out spoken when it comes to the things I disagree with and there is more than a few things but the difference between me and a lot of of the others on here is I attend the meetings and see these guys face to face where as a lot of the folk on here don't.

[cornbeef]

Given GMST's conduct over the past two years coupled with its continuing refusal to admit any collective responsibility for shambles past and present, then if you're going to accuse anybody of self righteousness I'd suggest there's a bigger, much easier target.

 

Watch you dont fall off that horse now, its a fair height to drop.

 

 

[biffinafa]

Without trolling thru all this thread.....

 

 

Can i attend, as a non-affiliated Morton supporter , this meeting?

[Rhubarb Mess]

Sad as it is to be posting while out, this is important:

 

You have been wrongly or badly advised. The meeting is about finding the best way(s) to bring GMST/SCs closer together, and has NOTHING to do with a recruitment drive.

 

Bewilderbeast, the meeting is on Nov 21st at MSC, who kindly offered their facilities after the original meeting was postponed.

 

We have positive responses from MSC, AHMSC and SHMSC. I've yet to hear back from the Lighthouse, but would be delighted to have reps from there along. I've not been able to get in touch with PoW, but will try tomorrow.

 

The trust will use any meeting with SC's to tap into potential new mugs.

 

You're a bitter fella sometimes, eh!?

 

you forgot twisted.

 

Yes - there is actually no need for him to do that anymore - they did a pretty good job of it themselves in the past. So cut it out Rooby ... I think they got the message ... if they haven't then we'll soon know and you can do it all over again until it sticks.

 

I'm gonna leave this conversation now cos i've probably already said far too much for some folks liking.

 

No

 

Can I not drop it for a minute??? Well pardon me but maybe you need to have a wee look in the mirror. Especially with regard to the arrogance issue!

 

The trust board is taking active steps to discuss with supporter groups if there is any way we could work together for the betterment of Morton whilst you and a number others only have an interest in running us down. What have you done proactively for Morton recently?

 

You say you base this on the last two years but you have no idea of the true detail of what has gone on. You only know the spin, lies and innuendo portrayed by a third party!

 

We want to explore if there are ways supporters can work together to help our club but clearly you, and a few others have made your minds up without having even met us or heard what we have to say. Don't talk to me about arrogance!

 

I am not in a position where as posting on a daft football forum harms my public image. This response (ignoring the later apology to others) is exactly the type of attitude I am on about. How dare I ask questions and how dare I show contempt for a man who treats adults as children. Don't PM me again and tell me to do anything.

 

Thats twice now you have reacted irrationally on this forum, do you really think yourself the man to lead the bust trust to this bright new dawn?

 

Hmm, what have I done proactively for Morton..can you give me the tick list please so i can make sure i'm a proper Morton fan?? Arrogant sod.

 

As long as DC knows when and where, that's fine by me

 

He will.

 

Jeeeso !!!!!!!!!

 

I'm back again - for the LAST time - why on earth did you feel the need to say that Nick ??????? You are the trust chairman for God's sake.

 

New startinmg point required - you two bury this stupid pointless hatchet !!!!!

 

That fence must hurt your arse.

 

Agreed, however it never fails to amaze me how many people rise to his bait. As soon as one Trust thread dies he starts another one and before you know it you have to wade through 10 pages of shoite (yeah, I do realise I'm now contributing to that).

 

The guy is an attention seeking wind-up merchant and would be best ignored instead of being pandered to.

 

Don't read and don't post then.

 

Without trolling thru all this thread.....

Can i attend, as a non-affiliated Morton supporter , this meeting?

 

No, you can't, shut it and get back in your box, did you not know you can't ask anything.

[chris_mceleny]

Wow - looks like progress already - Giz - this is great news.

 

Would any of the other supporters clubs be prepared to make a commitment like this one from Giz on this thread?

 

Just a point of clarity, Giz you'll be going to represent the MSC travel section, not the MSC.

[Torro]

Splitter!

[Rasta Ton]

I see independent minority shareholders haven't been invited.

[Rhubarb Mess]

Just a point of clarity, Giz you'll be going to represent the MSC travel section, not the MSC.

 

Correct.

 

Seems to be fans that travel to an affiliated travel club will have a voice but the rest will not. (well not until the agenda has been set)

 

Still await an answer to my question that if I start up Chaplins MTC can I attend?

 

I see independent minority shareholders haven't been invited.

 

Why bothers with such irrelevant facts.

[cmdc]

Rasta:

 

The meeting that seems to have upset a few on here is a meeting between the Trust and the Supporters' Clubs, to see how (if at all) we can work more closely together. Despite Rhubarb Mess's misunderstanding (and by the way RM, I answered your question about Chaplin's yesterday) this is not a meting designed to set or dictate an agenda to all fans. It is nothing more than a discussion between the Trust and the Supporters' Clubs on how we can work together. I fail to see the problem or the controversy in that. In fact, I think it's a positive step.

 

Simultaneously we have plans for a public meeting, open to all.

 

David Edwards:

 

There is literally no point in debating this with you as your mind seems closed to the possibility that the current GMST board are anything other than power hungry ego maniacs.

[cmdc]

Correct.

 

Seems to be fans that travel to an affiliated travel club will have a voice but the rest will not. (well not until the agenda has been set)

 

Still await an answer to my question that if I start up Chaplins MTC can I attend?

Why bothers with such irrelevant facts.

 

What agenda!? And why is it even controversial that SCs would be the primary invitees to a meeting between the Trust and SCs?

[chrissiboi]

If you are going to hold a meeting about the concerns of the club then surely you have to start with an open meeting , a no holds barred lets get everything out and then finally we maybe have a chance to move on with no exceptions. Let everyone speak and I include DDFR in this as he has to be part of the solution.

 

The way this has been set up it is already causing the annexing of supporters which is the opposite reaction.

So this to me seems to resemble Dougies Q and A's when they were convenient when it was all sweetness and light but as soon as supporters asked difficult questions the Q and A disappeared off the calendar.

[cmdc]

If you are going to hold a meeting about the concerns of the club then surely you have to start with an open meeting , a no holds barred lets get everything out and then finally we maybe have a chance to move on with no exceptions. Let everyone speak and I include DDFR in this as he has to be part of the solution.

 

The way this has been set up it is already causing the annexing of supporters which is the opposite reaction.

So this to me seems to resemble Dougies Q and A's when they were convenient when it was all sweetness and light but as soon as supporters asked difficult questions the Q and A disappeared off the calendar.

 

We are holding a public meeting about that. I'm not sure if people don't understand that or what, but we've stated quite clearly that this is what we intend to do. I can't speak for Dougie, but I know that Alan Moore has stated his intention to attend that meeting, and I'd like to think that DDF or Crawford would too, we'll see what transpires. At the same time, we think it's worth engaging with the Supporters' Clubs to see how (if at all) we can work more closely together: something which was put to our AGM and met with approval from the members.

[chrissiboi]

Rasta:

 

The meeting that seems to have upset a few on here is a meeting between the Trust and the Supporters' Clubs, to see how (if at all) we can work more closely together. Despite Rhubarb Mess's misunderstanding (and by the way RM, I answered your question about Chaplin's yesterday) this is not a meting designed to set or dictate an agenda to all fans. It is nothing more than a discussion between the Trust and the Supporters' Clubs on how we can work together. I fail to see the problem or the controversy in that. In fact, I think it's a positive step.

 

Simultaneously we have plans for a public meeting, open to all.

 

David Edwards:

 

There is literally no point in debating this with you as your mind seems closed to the possibility that the current GMST board are anything other than power hungry ego maniacs.

Has it already been mentioned there is a plan to have another meeting that will be open to all so it seems that the discussion will already have been opened at the previous meeting.

[cmdc]

If you are going to hold a meeting about the concerns of the club then surely you have to start with an open meeting , a no holds barred lets get everything out and then finally we maybe have a chance to move on with no exceptions. Let everyone speak and I include DDFR in this as he has to be part of the solution.

 

The way this has been set up it is already causing the annexing of supporters which is the opposite reaction.So this to me seems to resemble Dougies Q and A's when they were convenient when it was all sweetness and light but as soon as supporters asked difficult questions the Q and A disappeared off the calendar.

 

Sorry, but I don't think that's true. Some seem to take it that way, but only because they don't quite understand that the SC meeting is first and foremost about GMST and SCs, whilst the public meeting is about something different - the long term sustainability of the club (albeit with an obvious overlap). As I've said - we are committed to holding a public meeting, at which no-one will be barred (you referred earlier to 'banned members', which I presume meant Mortonjag, but he is welcome to attend should he wish to do so; it isn't a meeting restricted to Trust members).

 

 

[cmdc]

Has it already been mentioned there is a plan to have another meeting that will be open to all so it seems that the discussion will already have been opened at the previous meeting.

 

Except that it is not one continuous discussion: the first meeting is a discussion between the SCs and GMST about the ways (if at all) in which the groups can work more closely together. Now, we have plans to hold a different meeting in the near future: a public meeting for all interested parties. There might be some overlap between the two, but there is no question that the agenda of the public meeting will be discussed at, set by or dictated from the first.

[Toby]

I see independent minority shareholders haven't been invited.

 

That's actually untrue. I was invited to the original meeting arranged for the start of last month by a trust member who felt that given the fact I've got a strong interest in Morton's well being and shares in the club that the meeting would have been of interest to me. Whilst I'm not a member of the trust, and have my reservations about a number of issues surrounding them, I intend to take up the invitation for any re-arranged meeting.