Morton Club Together Updates

[SpoonTon]

6 hours ago, vikingTON said:

The sponsorship deal falling through was addressed a few weeks ago. I don't find the explanation offered by MCT 100% convincing (what's the club's benchmark for valuing sponsorship and who sets this: we don't have a chief executive FFS), but it's out there to judge for yourself.

I think you're absolutely right to be worried but are largely focusing on the wrong, relatively trivial issues. I'd love to see MCT produce a positive, incrementally progressive direction for the club right now, but we need to face the reality of a truly unprecedented shitstorm that is about to rip through Scottish football just like every other business sector. Standing still would be a relative luxury. We are hobbled in our response by not having easy access to cashflow; but on the other hand, we don't have debt to a Walter Mitty owner and the ground appears to be secure - two crucial points in favour of our future prospects IMO. 

Simply continuing to operate at a moderately competent level is going to be the true measure of success for 30-odd SPFL clubs in the next 12 months: and I wouldn't be at all surprised if several fail and go into administration instead. 

It certainly wasn't 100% convincing. It seemed like they weren't paying enough to shift the Easdale sponsors from the back of the shirts. 

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, helensburghton said:

I'm well aware of what's happened in the last six months, just asking for a bit of clarity from the club just now,  that's all.

If you're well aware of it then why are you asking about 'financial gains' from making cutbacks? Because there will be no such gains - the skyrocketing costs of keeping the lights on will immediately cancel them out at Morton just like 99% of all other businesses right now. 

[helensburghton]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

If you're well aware of it then why are you asking about 'financial gains' from making cutbacks? Because there will be no such gains - the skyrocketing costs of keeping the lights on will immediately cancel them out at Morton just like 99% of all other businesses right now. 

Aye you're right, I stand corrected. Jeezo, you're worse than my missus, got to have the last word. 

[HamCam]

It looks like a perfect storm on the horizon for many clubs with operational costs rising exponentially while revenue sources look under pressure. Given the looming cost of living crisis you would think attendances may decline which will not be good news especially if it coincides with a fall in MCT contributions. 

[helensburghton]

I see in the telegraph that Imrie has money available from "freed up club funds"  if a suitable player becomes available. Good to know.

[Madton]

Wouldn't be surprised if Dougie has been told you can bring in 1 or 2 more but they need to be the last week of the window to save paying a few weeks wages.

We brought 4 or 5 in on deadline day last year, presumably with the same plan to save money.

[port-ton]

I see in the email from MCT with the bios for new directors it states that they've not received any proposed amendments to their articles for the upcoming AGM yet.  Found that quite surprising as few people on here have mentioned things that should be brought up to amend at the AGM. 

[dunning1874]

13 hours ago, port-ton said:

I see in the email from MCT with the bios for new directors it states that they've not received any proposed amendments to their articles for the upcoming AGM yet.  Found that quite surprising as few people on here have mentioned things that should be brought up to amend at the AGM. 

Aye, having seen that last night I'm going to get an email sent today with proposals for giving the membership greater control over who's on the MCT board outwith reelection, and also codifying the relationship between MCT representatives on the GMFC board and the MCT board.

I hadn't done it yet as I was expecting half a dozen similar amendments to go in and with no legal knowledge whatsoever thought my wording might be guff, but no use complaining about how the articles need rewritten then seeing nothing happen: if my wording is shite or conflicts with existing articles it can be changed while keeping the gist of it anyway.

[Greacen2000]

11 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

Aye, having seen that last night I'm going to get an email sent today with proposals for giving the membership greater control over who's on the MCT board outwith reelection, and also codifying the relationship between MCT representatives on the GMFC board and the MCT board.

I hadn't done it yet as I was expecting half a dozen similar amendments to go in and with no legal knowledge whatsoever thought my wording might be guff, but no use complaining about how the articles need rewritten then seeing nothing happen: if my wording is shite or conflicts with existing articles it can be changed while keeping the gist of it anyway.

That’s pretty much what I’ve attempted to do too, and like you I was pretty surprised they hadn’t already received the same suggestion from others.  
 

I sent this to them last night.  I’m sure there could be improvements made to the wording and fine details, but I just want to make sure this subject is on the agenda for discussion as it’s so important.

 

 1. The boards of GMFC, GMFC property, and any other future subsidiaries of MCT should be comprised of MCT nominated representatives which reflect the shares held by MCT - so if it is 100% owned by MCT, then all board members must be nominated & approved by MCT membership, if it is 80% owned, then 80% of the board should be MCT representatives etc.

2.  In order to be entitled to a seat on the board of GMFC, GMFC property, or any other subsidiaries, an individual must hold at least 20% of the shares in circulation.

3.  In the event of MCT selling a significant percentage of shares to another party(as outlined in amendment 2), the terms of any such deal must be disclosed in full to MCT membership before going to a members vote.

4.   Any MCT nominated members of the boards of GMFC, GMFC property & any other future subsidiaries must be required to offer their resignation and stand for re-election by the MCT membership on an annual basis.

5.  Any directors of GMFC, GMFC property, or any other future subsidiaries who have taken their seat on the board as a result of being an MCT director, must immediately resign their position on the board upon ceasing to be a director of MCT.

 

[irnbru]

3 hours ago, Greacen2000 said:

 

5.  Any directors of GMFC, GMFC property, or any other future subsidiaries who have taken their seat on the board as a result of being an MCT director, must immediately resign their position on the board upon ceasing to be a director of MCT.

 

Might be misreading this but I don't think an MCT board member should be on the Morton board. Keeping them separate should work better if there's accountability and challenge which the other points start to address more than is done now. 

[Greacen2000]

9 minutes ago, irnbru said:

Might be misreading this but I don't think an MCT board member should be on the Morton board. Keeping them separate should work better if there's accountability and challenge which the other points start to address more than is done now. 

I don’t disagree with you on that, but I just worded this one to address the specific situation whereby Farmer & Ritchie have stepped down from the MCT board but remain directors of Morton.  I am not suggesting there is anything untoward about this, and from what I’ve seen both guys have put a lot of time and effort into their roles.  I just think there is a need for transparency on what happens in this situation, as there’s potential for us to end up with people on the board of the club who don’t represent MCT and who are essentially unaccountable.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Greacen2000

[vikingTON]

19 minutes ago, irnbru said:

Might be misreading this but I don't think an MCT board member should be on the Morton board. Keeping them separate should work better if there's accountability and challenge which the other points start to address more than is done now. 

Why shouldn't the majority shareholder have its representatives on the GMFC board: what is the point of having a majority share if there's literally zero representation at the club's executive level?

We also aren't exactly stacked with people with the time and expertise to run two completely separate institutions, so this self-denying principle strikes me as foolish at best and disastrous at worst.

The amendment to clarify what happens when reps step down from MCT and whether/for how long they can retain a spot on the GMFC board is a much better point that needs clarifying.  

[dunning1874]

I don't think they necessarily need to sit on both boards at once, but at the very least the MCT board (if not members) should have the power to recall GMFC board members who are there in a capacity as MCT representatives. Similarly, MCT members should have the power to have a vote of no confidence in MCT board members.

These things obviously need higher trigger points to instigate than any normal EGM/AGM resolution in order to avoid time being wasted by a small group of members with a personal vendetta against individuals, but while people probably have disagreements about how this should work in practice I think we can all agree it's necessary to have some kind of genuine through line of acccountability from MCT members to MCT board to GMFC board. Otherwise in practice we're not a fan owned club at all, we've just got fans making a donation for a private committee to appoint themselves and act as they please.

[HamCam]

14 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

I don't think they necessarily need to sit on both boards at once, but at the very least the MCT board (if not members) should have the power to recall GMFC board members who are there in a capacity as MCT representatives. Similarly, MCT members should have the power to have a vote of no confidence in MCT board members.

These things obviously need higher trigger points to instigate than any normal EGM/AGM resolution in order to avoid time being wasted by a small group of members with a personal vendetta against individuals, but while people probably have disagreements about how this should work in practice I think we can all agree it's necessary to have some kind of genuine through line of acccountability from MCT members to MCT board to GMFC board. Otherwise in practice we're not a fan owned club at all, we've just got fans making a donation for a private committee to appoint themselves and act as they please.

No way there are any small groups of members with a personal vendetta against individuals hiding in plain sight in the Morton support. 

[irnbru]

5 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Why shouldn't the majority shareholder have its representatives on the GMFC board: what is the point of having a majority share if there's literally zero representation at the club's executive level?

We also aren't exactly stacked with people with the time and expertise to run two completely separate institutions, so this self-denying principle strikes me as foolish at best and disastrous at worst.

The amendment to clarify what happens when reps step down from MCT and whether/for how long they can retain a spot on the GMFC board is a much better point that needs clarifying.  

I should probably have wrote necessarily be on both. Agree on all the other points here - much needed changes to how it's run. 

I actually thought it was a bit worrying that the new people didn't really flag that king of thing. 

[irnbru]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:15 AM, Greacen2000 said:

That’s pretty much what I’ve attempted to do too, and like you I was pretty surprised they hadn’t already received the same suggestion from others.  
 

I sent this to them last night.  I’m sure there could be improvements made to the wording and fine details, but I just want to make sure this subject is on the agenda for discussion as it’s so important.

 

 1. The boards of GMFC, GMFC property, and any other future subsidiaries of MCT should be comprised of MCT nominated representatives which reflect the shares held by MCT - so if it is 100% owned by MCT, then all board members must be nominated & approved by MCT membership, if it is 80% owned, then 80% of the board should be MCT representatives etc.

2.  In order to be entitled to a seat on the board of GMFC, GMFC property, or any other subsidiaries, an individual must hold at least 20% of the shares in circulation.

3.  In the event of MCT selling a significant percentage of shares to another party(as outlined in amendment 2), the terms of any such deal must be disclosed in full to MCT membership before going to a members vote.

4.   Any MCT nominated members of the boards of GMFC, GMFC property & any other future subsidiaries must be required to offer their resignation and stand for re-election by the MCT membership on an annual basis.

5.  Any directors of GMFC, GMFC property, or any other future subsidiaries who have taken their seat on the board as a result of being an MCT director, must immediately resign their position on the board upon ceasing to be a director of MCT.

 

Looks like they haven't made the cut. 

[Greacen2000]

1 hour ago, irnbru said:

Looks like they haven't made the cut. 

I actually had a conversation on the phone with one of the guys who was drafting the amendments.  1, 2, 4 & 5 would need to be put forward as amendments to articles of the subsidiaries at their AGMs so aren’t applicable to MCT articles.  Number 3 has been reworded and made it in there under 4.4c

[irnbru]

7 hours ago, Greacen2000 said:

I actually had a conversation on the phone with one of the guys who was drafting the amendments.  1, 2, 4 & 5 would need to be put forward as amendments to articles of the subsidiaries at their AGMs so aren’t applicable to MCT articles.  Number 3 has been reworded and made it in there under 4.4c

I thought 1, 2 and 4 were the main ones that added accountability in. 

I get the point but it looks like that can never be done since it relies on boards of people who have never been voted in (including one at GMFC who has recently bought his way in). 

[dunning1874]

44 minutes ago, irnbru said:

I thought 1, 2 and 4 were the main ones that added accountability in. 

I get the point but it looks like that can never be done since it relies on boards of people who have never been voted in (including one at GMFC who has recently bought his way in). 

I also had a chat on the phone after submitting some amendments (the addition to Article 16 there allowing a vote of no confidence in MCT Directors is mine). I don't want to give away everything that was said as they'll be communicating it themselves and that'll have the proper wording and explanation attached whereas I might get something wrong in the retelling, but the gist of it is that some of the changes around how people are elected to the GMFC board require a change to the GMFC Articles rather than MCT so haven't been included here, however a proper democratic process will be put in place for this.

I have to say I was quite impressed with the conversation I had, and democratising everything was clearly already something they were giving a lot of thought to.

[Greacen2000]

1 hour ago, irnbru said:

I thought 1, 2 and 4 were the main ones that added accountability in. 

I get the point but it looks like that can never be done since it relies on boards of people who have never been voted in (including one at GMFC who has recently bought his way in). 

They were, but adding them into MCT articles wouldn’t have made any difference since they relate to the boards of other entities.  I was assured that when the AGMs of GMFC & GMFC property come around,  we will get a chance to put forward amendments (which would be raised on our behalf by MCT representatives on the boards of these companies).

 

I was pretty impressed by the conversation I had too.  There’s an acknowledgement that work needs to be done to improve transparency & accountability across MCT, the club & the property company, but they can only really do this one thing at a time.  It makes sense to start with the articles of the parent company  and get that sorted out before doing the same with the subsidiaries.  
 

I also think that the announcements Dunning mentioned will add some more clarity in the meantime 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Greacen2000