Morton Club Together Updates - Page 102 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Morton Club Together Updates


Admin

Recommended Posts

Firstly, if MCT didn't want to talk about it 'for the sake of the player', they could have, err, just produced a mealy-mouthed mumbleclown answer and moved on to the next section please. It's not a fucking Paxman interview. There's absolutely no reason for them to can the thing entirely because they don't like a question being asked. That is literally worse than the Falkirk board's behaviour at their recent and utterly embarrassing Q and A. 

Secondly, we all seem be assuming that there's a single club employee they are not willing to discuss. If you buy the claptrap about not talking about a club employee when accounting for a public interest hiring decision (which you shouldn't) then you can never talk about the managerial job either, which renders the point of the exercise meaningless for a professional football club. 

Thirdly, the 'for the sake of the player' requires a lot of blind faith about the motives of a leadership team who frankly have done little to merit it so far. They have been the polar opposite of transparent about every other issue surrounding the club since April, so the logical conclusion is that they are simply circling the wagons to protect themselves from scrutiny and nobody else. Running away from a podcast only reinforces this as routine behaviour and not some principled stand.

Edited by vikingTON
  • Upvote 2

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TONofmemories said:

Interestingly, i don't recall mass outrage when we signed a convicted stalker with a 2 year stint at climbing drain pipes to spy on his victims. Ok, its not a sex offence as such, but it's up there with creepy and abhorrent behaviour. He was afforded a second chance. Maybe because he was a good (or better) player? What if the person he was spying on was naked? That's could be considered a sex crime of sorts. Maybe harassment.

^^^ clutching at straws

  • Upvote 1

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2021 at 9:50 AM, MCT Team said:

Got an answer for you which you can see below that hopefully explains everything you've asked.

The new company structure consists of three linked limited companies. A limited company is treated as a separate legal entity, and so although the three companies are linked, they are still three separate bodies.

The parent company is MCT Ltd - the same company that members have been contributing to. There is now a new mid-level limited company, which owns the stadium. This property company is 100% owned by MCT. The third company is Greenock Morton Football Club Ltd. That company owns the SFA and League registration and membership. 

Under this system, if the football club runs into financial difficulties, any creditors or administrator cannot get their hands on the stadium, as it is not an asset of the club. 

As a result, GMFC Ltd no longer owns Cappielow. However, it did not (from a practical point of view) own Cappielow before the takeover. At that point, although the club held title to the stadium, there were securities in place for the club debts which meant that, effectively, Golden Casket controlled the stadium. Currently, the stadium is owned by the membership of MCT.

The value of the remaining 10% of shares in Morton should not be significantly affected by the deal. It is true that they no longer own a share of Cappielow, but the write off of club debts is equal to or greater than the value of the stadium. As a result, the club’s balance sheet will have lost approx £2m in debt from one side and a £2m asset from the other. The overall value of the club has probably increased slightly (a £2m debt never looks good on a balance sheet), but the value of each share is so small that in practical terms there should be no real difference to the value of each share.

It is our intention to provide existing shareholders in the club with a full written resolution of the movements at the club as soon as we receive it from our solicitors. We anticipate that this will be circulated within the next few weeks.

Re the part in bold; Here we are five weeks later and I'm still waiting on the "full written resolution".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Firstly, if MCT didn't want to talk about it 'for the sake of the player', they could have, err, just produced a mealy-mouthed mumbleclown answer and moved on to the next section please. It's not a fucking Paxman interview. There's absolutely no reason for them to can the thing entirely because they don't like a question being asked. That is literally worse than the Falkirk board's behaviour at their recent and utterly embarrassing Q and A. 

Secondly, we all seem be assuming that there's a single club employee they are not willing to discuss. If you buy the claptrap about not talking about a club employee when accounting for a public interest hiring decision (which you shouldn't) then you can never talk about the managerial job either, which renders the point of the exercise meaningless for a professional football club. 

Thirdly, the 'for the sake of the player' requires a lot of blind faith about the motives of a leadership team who frankly have done little to merit it so far. They have been the polar opposite of transparent about every other issue surrounding the club since April, so the logical conclusion is that they are simply circling the wagons to protect themselves from scrutiny and nobody else. Running away from a podcast only reinforces this as routine behaviour and not some principled stand.

The bit in bold, what I understand from what i've read on here and also the Twitter meltdown which ensued, it was Dean who canned them for trying to renege on their original agreement, and not the other way around.  And quite rightly too.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChampTon said:

What do people want this The Rangers-Esque statement to say? 

"sorry we've hired someone convicted of sexual misbehaviour but he's moved on"?

I genuinely don't believe any sort of statement would be acceptable for those awaiting one. It would just be there for folk to nitpick at and be even more furious about, 5 months later.

I'm no supporter of MCT, I haven't pledged yet and won't until I see encouraging signs of improvement. There are more problematic matters currently for MCT than the echo chamber that surrounds this once proud club.

I'm not looking for any 'statements', whether they're 'Rangers-esque' or otherwise.  I simply don't want any sex offenders at our club.  If it were up to me I wouldn't even allow him to pay in to watch a game, never mind play in one.

I'm actually astounded that there are so many people in our support and in our boardroom that either don't care; aren't too bothered about it, or feel really comfortable about it - all because of his ability to play football.  Would those same people feel okay about it if he weren't such a talented player, or if the sex offender were a non-playing member of staff and wore the Cappie Cat* outfit on a matchday instead?

 

 

ETA: *not implying that the current mascot guy is a nonce.  Just the guy that we should never have signed in the first place.

Edited by capitanus
  • Upvote 1

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

Institutional child grooming and sex offending over decades (with no apology or acceptance that it was anything to do with the club) vs a one off incident over a decade ago, hasn't re-offended, apology issued, paid the price getting on with his life, multiple employments since etc etc. 

They're two completely different things. 

He done wrong we all know that, but has seemingly rehabilitated himself since being the then 19 year old. 

This is hanging onto something for the sake of it and for the sake of folk point scoring. It should have been dealt with better however, but for some that's not the reasoning behind all this drain circling. 

It wasn't a 'one off' as you claimed, but at least four seperate incidents on the same day at opposite ends of the country.  How do you know that he hasn't re-offended? You can't be sure of this, as there may have been unsolved crimes of indecency across the country over the past decade.  Also, where has he apologised?  I havent see him showing any remorse in his interviews since then. 

Multiple employments since then?  Okay, so someone else doesn't have high moral standards, so we should follow suit?

Nah, your arguments are all crap.

  • Upvote 1

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point, I didn't bother to fact check.

Point remains, grabbing on to this in mid November as a point scoring exercise (let's be honest that's what this is) is fucking tragic.  Almost as tragic as releasing statements about legal repercussions of a podcast😂 Pure Rangers da behaviour. 

It should have been addressed in some form, it wasn't and quite clearly isn't going to be. There a lot more important matters at the club and surrounding the running of the club for me than hanging on for dear life to the signing of someone who made a terrible mistakes years ago and has since never re-offended and has to live with his actions. 

 

2 minutes ago, capitanus said:

It wasn't a 'one off' as you claimed, but at least four seperate incidents on the same day at opposite ends of the country.  How do you know that he hasn't re-offended? You can't be sure of this, as there may have been unsolved crimes of indecency across the country over the past decade.  Also, where has he apologised?  I havent see him showing any remorse in his interviews since then. 

Multiple employments since then?  Okay, so someone else doesn't have high moral standards, so we should follow suit?

Nah, your arguments are all crap.

^^ clutching at straws.

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a couple of problems with the latest update (apart from the ones already mentioned here). 

1. Feedback Loop. Why would this not be in place? Surely members are the main thing about MCT. Its worrying that any sort of feedback loop was officially closed. 

MCT has reinstated the Feedback Loop. This was previously in place, and was a key vehicle for members to raise questions or queries and have them answered by the club, or by MCT ourselves. 

2. Due Diligence. The below point is made on the MCT site but surely this is something that was known. Someone from MCT said they had identified about 100k of cost savings at one point but would be looking to improve fan experience. Surely anyone who's been to Cappielow knows things like the toilets in the Cowshed don't have hot water. Was this all missed when this was all being spoken about? 

The club board are continuing to discover a number of infrastructural problems around the club and are trying to resolve these will also maintaining the day-to-day operations of the club. There's no quick fix for some of these problems. 

Improvements are limited due to financial constraints. Things like overhauling the Cappielow toilet facilities and making simple improvements to how they function cost considerable amounts of money. These are necessary improvements but the costs need to be weighed out and planned in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, irnbru said:

Got a couple of problems with the latest update (apart from the ones already mentioned here). 

1. Feedback Loop. Why would this not be in place? Surely members are the main thing about MCT. Its worrying that any sort of feedback loop was officially closed. 

MCT has reinstated the Feedback Loop. This was previously in place, and was a key vehicle for members to raise questions or queries and have them answered by the club, or by MCT ourselves. 

2. Due Diligence. The below point is made on the MCT site but surely this is something that was known. Someone from MCT said they had identified about 100k of cost savings at one point but would be looking to improve fan experience. Surely anyone who's been to Cappielow knows things like the toilets in the Cowshed don't have hot water. Was this all missed when this was all being spoken about? 

The club board are continuing to discover a number of infrastructural problems around the club and are trying to resolve these will also maintaining the day-to-day operations of the club. There's no quick fix for some of these problems. 

Improvements are limited due to financial constraints. Things like overhauling the Cappielow toilet facilities and making simple improvements to how they function cost considerable amounts of money. These are necessary improvements but the costs need to be weighed out and planned in. 

Responsibility for hygiene, especially in todays world, vs cost to implement being expensive. Christ almighty.

Who releases this shit? 

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

The point you keep missing is that this is a pertinent example of those wider issues. It's not about the rights and wrongs of the signing, it's about how the club dealt with the fallout and what that tells us about those more important issues at the club.

The boardroom decision making process on footballing matters is a much bigger issue than signing Lithgow, but understanding how the decision to do so was made and who at a board level actually had responsibility for it would shed light on what that process actually is. That's something the GMFC board are for some reason determined to hide, as also shown by the club Q&A and their ridiculous refusal to reveal which board member is MacPherson's point of contact. That's why people are still asking questions about it and will continue to do so until they get an answer.

The lack of accountability or transparency in communication with members and the wider fanbase is a bigger issue than signing Lithgow, but their continual refusal to say anything about it is a manifestation of that lack of transparency. They are supposed to be accountable to their members, their members have consistently asked questions about it and consistently been ignored. It suggests that MCT are happy to say "we want to be transparent" when taking their members money, but the second anyone has a question they don't like they'll go out of their way to avoid being transparent.

This complete secrecy in how they're operating then leads to there being no accountability at all, because no one knows who is making decisions or how and why they're coming to them, meaning we've no way of knowing how any of our representatives on the board are actually performing in their roles. That's why people are still asking questions about it and will continue to do so until they get an answer.

For the record you can add me to the group of people who generally does agree with the rehabilitation and give a second chance point of view and therefore didn't have an issue with the signing, but I do have a massive issue with how the club has dealt with everything since. It's not about Lithgow, it's because of those bigger issues that this matters.

Don't disagree with most of what you say other than i'm of the belief that for some this isn't just about addressing the issue by way ofa a token statement as you say. This is about folk not being able to see beyond the fact he has a record and are subsequently using it as a means to beat the club, and by nature, Lithgow himself with a stick. Perhaps due to the distaste towards Gordon Richie; this is the vehicle being used to drive and point score. 

Elements of our support when they get the bit between their teeth refuse to let it go, even after explanation. I believe this would be no different here. 

  • Upvote 1

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just working off the assumption that Shippo is running the club and everyone else is just nodding along. This assumption may be incorrect but in the absence of any better info, and based on what I've heard, it seems the likeliest scenario to me.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

The point you keep missing is that this is a pertinent example of those wider issues. It's not about the rights and wrongs of the signing, it's about how the club dealt with the fallout and what that tells us about those more important issues at the club.

The boardroom decision making process on footballing matters is a much bigger issue than signing Lithgow, but understanding how the decision to do so was made and who at a board level actually had responsibility for it would shed light on what that process actually is. That's something the GMFC board are for some reason determined to hide, as also shown by the club Q&A and their ridiculous refusal to reveal which board member is MacPherson's point of contact. That's why people are still asking questions about it and will continue to do so until they get an answer.

The lack of accountability or transparency in communication with members and the wider fanbase is a bigger issue than signing Lithgow, but their continual refusal to say anything about it is a manifestation of that lack of transparency. They are supposed to be accountable to their members, their members have consistently asked questions about it and consistently been ignored. It suggests that MCT are happy to say "we want to be transparent" when taking their members money, but the second anyone has a question they don't like they'll go out of their way to avoid being transparent.

This complete secrecy in how they're operating then leads to there being no accountability at all, because no one knows who is making decisions or how and why they're coming to them, meaning we've no way of knowing how any of our representatives on the board are actually performing in their roles. That's why people are still asking questions about it and will continue to do so until they get an answer.

For the record you can add me to the group of people who generally does agree with the rehabilitation and give a second chance point of view and therefore didn't have an issue with the signing, but I do have a massive issue with how the club has dealt with everything since. It's not about Lithgow, it's because of those bigger issues that this matters.

The bit in bold, it is about this signing for me.  It was the signing of a player that should be nowhere near our club and showed no regard for the thoughts or feelings of the supporters on the matter.  It was also the signing of a player whom the previous regime at Cappielow decided against signing because they took the supporters feelings on the matter into consideration.  For a supposedly fan-owned club to show scant regard towards the same supporters by signing the same player so early on during their fledgling tenure is nothing short of appalling. 

You mentioned previously how you would have felt if it were David Goodwillie that we'd signed, well that's pretty much how I feel about this lot.  This is a fucking disgraceful situation that the current incumbents have put us in, and its a situation of their own making and one which I will never accept.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

Will MCT be tolerating discussion of a club employee whose clownshoes decision-making will get us relegated the season anytime soon? 

I'd like full disclosure on how the decision to offer a two year deal was arrived at, so that I know who to blacklist for all future MCT elections to the board.

And we should also turn our attention to those on the GMFC board, whose track record in decision-making that affects the first team has been utterly disastrous. 

If fan ownership is to mean anything, it means accountability for the decisions made by representatives. 

This. I'm also far more concerned about finding out who made the decision to give the current management team two year contracts. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...