Supporters Uniting

[chrissiboi]

Rasta, the comment that was "throwaway rubbish" was a personal and sweeping attack on every board member by a guy who has never or barely ever met the board. Criticism is part and parcel of this type of thing, and I've tried to respond to it on this and other threads, but stuff like that is not really criticism.

 

On the Stars thing: we are NOT pursuing an action as such; we've had the case sisted and will resist any attempt to revive it. If we are able to draw a line here we'll call an SGM to give account for the whole saga to members and loan note holders alike.

 

 

You are having a giraffe surely !!!!!

 

What happened to retrieving your members money !!!

 

So you went through all this and after 2 years of no fundraising a board clear out and it all fizzles out in a whimper.

 

So can we now discuss this or do we have to wait until the court dismiss the case ?

 

Will the defenders of this case Willowman, be breathing a sigh of relief or wanting his day in court ?

 

Does that mean those who used this website to accuse said poster of wrong doing open to a charge of libel ?

[Wee Dublin End]

It was shocked the other night when someone called me a Trust Basher; I'm far from it. I wish the Trust every success. It's just dissapointing to have invested a monkey in an organisation which now has no value.

 

I feel that it would be better if they were more ordinary people on the board. The new board has Insolvency Practioners, doctors, uninversity graduates etc. One of them has a beard which I find intimidating and another one even has long hair. I'd feel more represented if the people on the board were normal people like cleaners, bus-drivers, shop-assistants, welders and window cleaners instead of the afforementioned type who give me an inferiority complex.

 

And with regard to uniting the fans. Most fans do not travel, therefore meeting with all the travel clubs is a red-herring. I for one don't want to unite with anyone, I just want to go and watch a game of football every 2nd Saturday.

[Rhubarb Mess]

On the Stars thing: we are NOT pursuing an action as such; we've had the case sisted and will resist any attempt to revive it. If we are able to draw a line here we'll call an SGM to give account for the whole saga to members and loan note holders alike.

 

 

Eh, but its watertight and the man you are pursuing has had funds bonded to account for your 'winnings' should he lose. (I presume you would have no interest in blocking this as that would be non-sensical and for me an admission that the trust could have got this badly wrong). Willow seems happy to have his day in court, I would expect the trust to be likewise.

 

If you have decided not to pursue this will the trust publicly apologise for dragging an individual through the mire who as yet has been found not guilty or responsible of anything.

 

Or will another smear campaign resume? (if it ever stopped)

 

 

 

 

If Dougie isn't giving the trust the time of day, offer to sell him all his shares back through a leak to the press with the proviso of the trust running a youth set up for the ton and inverclyde football in general as stated somewhere above amoungst the handbags, have a similar sell on clauses that the last guy had for said youths that make it to keep it ticking over, everyones a winner, dougie gets his shares back we get no more diddies like templman, russell, mcanespie etc etc. and the trust get a bit of good pr.

 

I'm available for scouting players on the beaches of rio.

 

too good an idea, and one which was raised in the 'hidden thread' but remember, they are the second largest shareholder with a shrinking stake in Morton.

 

 

I see cuddly old Nick has offered once again to show individuals the evidence.

 

Nick, I’ve not even seen the evidence from one side or another, I have and will resist any attempts to do so (don't believe me ask the doc). Get the evidence in front of a judge and let them decide, I fail to see the problem in doing so (with what I wrote above in mind)

 

Don't you get it? most are not rounding on the trust for the stars night, its how shambolic, clandestine and down right mischievous way trust board members have acted and no matter how you dress up the new committee is clear to see the 'new' mob have as much difficulty taking criticism as the last lot (i'll exclude cmdc from that as he has genuinely attempted to answer, even if I don't agree or believe at least the man gives it a go, Nick on the other hand cannot take any form of criticism it seems).

 

The Stars night was the catalyst that opened up the dirty tricks and sneaky actions of those you would have expected more of..

 

Anyway Nick, Trust Chairman was your second choice was it not, suppose we all have to just grab what we can.

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

It was shocked the other night when someone called me a Trust Basher; I'm far from it. I wish the Trust every success. It's just dissapointing to have invested a monkey in an organisation which now has no value.

 

I feel that it would be better if they were more ordinary people on the board. The new board has Insolvency Practioners, doctors, uninversity graduates etc. One of them has a beard which I find intimidating and another one even has long hair. I'd feel more represented if the people on the board were normal people like cleaners, bus-drivers, shop-assistants, welders and window cleaners instead of the afforementioned type who give me an inferiority complex.

 

And with regard to uniting the fans. Most fans do not travel, therefore meeting with all the travel clubs is a red-herring. I for one don't want to unite with anyone, I just want to go and watch a game of football every 2nd Saturday.

 

 

Out of touch is how I would term it.

[ScappaTon]

Has it been sisted as part of an out of court agreement???

 

Did Real Morton ever recover any funds from the incident a few years ago?

[TONofmemories]

[chrissiboi]

I don't have anything to say on the case itself.

 

 

A matter of of 8 or 9 hours overnight and we go from nothing to see here to we will not continue with the case.

 

Thats strange hours the courts keep now , Blair ( anything with the name Blair alarm bells go off in my head ) & Bryden do a nightshift ?

[cmdc]

I don't have anything to say on the case itself.

A matter of of 8 or 9 hours overnight and we go from nothing to see here to we will not continue with the case.

 

Thats strange hours the courts keep now , Blair ( anything with the name Blair alarm bells go off in my head ) & Bryden do a nightshift ?

 

I don't really follow: the case has been sisted since Oct 24th or thereabouts, and that was publicised on our website, on our forum and on here. What I am not willing to discuss on this forum are specifics about the substance of the case (we can still call it that as a sist is a suspension rather than a termination of the case, albeit to be revived one party would have to put a good case for doing so to the sheriff), or of the sist itself. Of course, as soon as the position is clarified we'll call an SGM of Trust members and loan note holders where we'll give account for our position.

[Alibi]

I thought the case was an open and shut matter. Why has it been mothballed? What are the total costs to the Trust to date? Surely the case has to be allowed to proceed to ensure that justice is done? If money has been invested in taking the case this far, what has caused the Trust to do an emergency stop? It was stated further back on the thread that the defendant has actually put up the money that is sought - that doesn't sound like the action of someone who knows he is in the wrong, which is a bit worrying. As a loan note holder who has basically been told that it's not a loan, it's a donation unless you can prove malnutrition, I am a bit disappointed that the Trust is not pursuing this dangerous hardened criminal, whoever he is, and making an example of him.

 

I'm not taking sides in this matter as I don't know anything about it but jeezo, I should have become a lawyer. Easy money whoever wins, even if it's a draw.

 

I couldn't get to sleep last night so I read this thread. Dropped off inside 5 minutes.

[cmdc]

I thought the case was an open and shut matter.

 

I've never said that, or anything like it.

 

Why has it been mothballed?

 

We'll explain this at the SGM.

 

What are the total costs to the Trust to date?

 

We'll set this out at the SGM. In short: less than four figures.

 

Surely the case has to be allowed to proceed to ensure that justice is done? If money has been invested in taking the case this far, what has caused the Trust to do an emergency stop?

 

Again, this is for the SGM. In short: because, in our view, the defender lacked the locus to defend the action. Therefore, in our view, the case CANNOT proceed because it is (for reasons that were unknown at the time of raising the action) legally incompetent to pursue it.

 

It was stated further back on the thread that the defendant has actually put up the money that is sought - that doesn't sound like the action of someone who knows he is in the wrong, which is a bit worrying.

 

It's hard to answer that without going to the substance of the case, so - again - I'll leave it for the SGM.

 

As a loan note holder who has basically been told that it's not a loan, it's a donation unless you can prove malnutrition,

 

You've been told!? Come on...you knew fine well the terms of the loan note when you entered it. It's not like we've suddenly moved the goalposts. It IS a loan, and not a donation, because - for example - in the event of the Trust ceasing to trade, you have an etitlement to have your money returned. If it was a donation, you would have no right over the money at all.

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

Again, this is for the SGM. In short: because, in our view, the defender lacked the locus to defend the action. Therefore, in our view, the case CANNOT proceed because it is (for reasons that were unknown at the time of raising the action) legally incompetent to pursue it.

 

 

And so the cop out begins...do you honestly think this is going to be swallowed when a bond is in place?

 

Its wriggly time, you lot are looking for a way out which has damage limitation at its fore.

 

 

Go to court and prove the trusts watertight case and the baddy will be dealt with. If you don't, and no matter what excuse is used, your already wilting public image will die a very quick death indeed.

 

[Wee Dublin End]

Of course, as soon as the position is clarified we'll call an SGM of Trust members and loan note holders where we'll give account for our position.

 

Are you the one with the beard ?

[Alibi]

Seems to me that someone who is able to put money on the table before a judgement has been made must be in a position to say "bring it on" and must also be fairly confident of winning. The inference I would draw is that someone is maybe thinking that the Trust has been put in an exposed position financially and is trying to limit the damage.

 

I do find it hard to credit that something that has gone on this long has only accrued a legal bill of less than four figures for either side. If I as much as say good morning to my solicitor it costs me £200.

[cornbeef]

Again, this is for the SGM. In short: because, in our view, the defender lacked the locus to defend the action. Therefore, in our view, the case CANNOT proceed because it is (for reasons that were unknown at the time of raising the action) legally incompetent to pursue it.

And so the cop out begins...do you honestly think this is going to be swallowed when a bond is in place?

 

Its wriggly time, you lot are looking for a way out which has damage limitation at its fore.

Go to court and prove the trusts watertight case and the baddy will be dealt with. If you don't, and no matter what excuse is used, your already wilting public image will die a very quick death indeed.

 

In your world.

 

Is it true you had to quit playing rugby because you were convinced they were all talking about you in the scrum ?

 

and remember... just because you're paranoid... doesn't mean they're not out to get you

 

 

 

[cmdc]

Seems to me that someone who is able to put money on the table before a judgement has been made must be in a position to say "bring it on" and must also be fairly confident of winning. The inference I would draw is that someone is maybe thinking that the Trust has been put in an exposed position financially and is trying to limit the damage.

 

I do find it hard to credit that something that has gone on this long has only accrued a legal bill of less than four figures for either side. If I as much as say good morning to my solicitor it costs me £200.

 

In bold - look, I can't answer that without going into the substance of the case and I'm not prepared to do that on a public forum.

 

Rhubarb Mess: this isn't us getting out by the back door, it's us following the law as we see it. I wouldn't think a court is the best place for us to ignore the law and plough on regardless!

 

In italics - You might find that hard to believe, but that is the position and we can account for that at the SGM.

[cmdc]

Are you the one with the beard ?

 

Until about 6 or 7 tonight, when I intend to shave.

[cornbeef]

Until about 6 or 7 tonight, when I intend to shave.

 

 

That's should keep at least one 'customer' happy There ye go WDE- sorted.

 

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

In your world.

 

Is it true you had to quit playing rugby because you were convinced they were all talking about you in the scrum ?

 

and remember... just because you're paranoid... doesn't mean they're not out to get you

 

 

Played 2 games of Rugby in my entire life.

 

1, beat 16 - 4 by Grovepark at the Battery (yours truly got our solitary try)

2. Beat 52 - 0 by Port High at Port High wil resulted in a running battle between pupils on Dubbs Road.

 

On the Monday we got hauled in and were told that the school rugby team was bening abandoned (partly the sjhame at the 52 -0 and partly because of the running battles).

 

Anyway, as far as i'm aware they never ever did bring the school rugby team back.

 

So if true, I claim to be the last ever try scorer for Cowdenknowes High School. But i've never wanted to tell anyone due to my utter paranoia!

 

wee lesson for you there corncob.

 

In bold - look, I can't answer that without going into the substance of the case and I'm not prepared to do that on a public forum.

 

Rhubarb Mess: this isn't us getting out by the back door, it's us following the law as we see it!

 

In italics - You might find that hard to believe, but that is the position and we can account for that at the SGM.

 

 

Its attempting to look for flaw in the law to get you out of it.

Face the man in court, if you win you are guaranteed the money.

 

I think we will let everyon else decide if this will end up a cop out.

 

James BOND.

[cmdc]

Well, it's not nearly as simple as that...and I'll explain that at the SGM.

[chrissiboi]

Well, it's not nearly as simple as that...and I'll explain that at the SGM.

I would have thought there is more than money at stake here. I would have thought since the new board of the Trust continued to persue this case their credibility is up for debate.

 

The reason for the sist and you say the Trust would be unable to recover any monies owed. Was this a situation you as in the Trust should have been aware of earlier ? Was it an oversight from the previous administration ?

 

So what happens if the court allow the case to come back into the court calendar what then ?

Going through a small claims thing as a witness and this is pretty much standard for these cases from my experience. Hence why I spoke out and was sceptical of the whole private prosecution.