Morton Club Together Updates - Page 123 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Morton Club Together Updates


Admin

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

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.

The level of accountability from the GMFC board to MCT and wider shareholders has been a concern I have raised in the earlier days of MCT, at that point all I would get back is that they would put in place governance with no detail as to how or when.

If they are now in a position to articulate what they need to do, that really does increase the confidence level in MCT as a credible outfit.  

The last thing we need is to end up in a position where GMFC board is moving in a direction against the wishes of MCT and there is no mechanism to intervene, we will just end up like Stirling Albion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the benefit of anyone who might not have recieved the mail, the following update was just sent out by MCT.  Very positive stuff in my opinion, and shows a real desire to bring the governance of the club up to date in a way that’s aligned to the community ownership model.

TLDR: current board had to be appointed using the pre-existing (and very outdated) rules of the club.  Moving forward the proposal is to give MCT members more control over who is appointed, including a proposed pathway for MCT members to serve on the board of the club

 

Members,

Following on from our communication about the upcoming election of new directors to the MCT Board we thought we would share with you about our proposed concept on how members can get onto a pathway to being a member to becoming a club director.  

One of the fundamental principles of MCT, and how it governs its ownership of the football club, is that every MCT member has an equal opportunity to serve on the MCT board and the football club board, if they so wish. 

Our proposed director pathway is different to how the most recent MCT nominee appointments were made to the Morton board and before we lay out our new proposed director pathway we would like to give you some background to the current board positions.   

How was the Current GMFC Board Selected?

The present Greenock Morton board contains 6 members and these are:  

  • Graham McLennan (MCT Nominee and Morton Board member since 2019)  
  • Gordon Ritchie (MCT Nominee and Morton Board member since 2020) 
  • Stewart Farmer (MCT Nominee and Morton Board member since 2021) 
  • Graham Barr (MCT Nominee and Morton Board member since 2021)  
  • Alex Gray (Ordinary Morton Board member since 2016)  
  • Michael Harkins (Ordinary Morton Board member since 2022)* 

*Michael is a Chartered Accountant and our new Financial Director. Michael was recently appointed to the board following the resignation of long-standing Morton board member and Financial Director, Nick Robinson.

When Graham McLennan was appointed to the Morton Board, MCT were not the owners in waiting of the club. At that point, MCT was a significant and growing financial contributor to the club and the invite to MCT to have a board position was a recognition of this.  

As time progressed, the opportunity for MCT to take on the majority shareholding of the club grew, resulting in an outline agreement in summer 2020 where MCT would be offered the opportunity to take control of the majority shareholding. In recognition of this, and also that MCT was the biggest financial contributor to the club, a second seat on the board was made available that Gordon Ritchie took up.  

During the 2020/21 season, MCT were able to see at close quarters how the club was run. In fact, during this season MCT were required to lead on many day-to-day issues to assist the club. By the end of season 2020/21 MCT Members gave unanimous approval to proceed with the takeover of the club.

The approval of MCT Members to take over the majority shareholding was significant. However, it was only one part of a very complicated series of negotiations including legal and financial agreements that were required to be discussed. At the time the transfer of majority shareholding was no foregone conclusion.  

The protracted negotiations continued during the Championship playoffs and the close season in 2021, with an in-principle agreement concluded in the latter half of the summer of 2021.  

As part of the preparations for new ownership, MCT had to be readied to have a club board up and running to allow for the transfer to take place. However, MCT were required to act in accordance with the rules of Greenock Morton Football Club. The rules of the club mean that the club board can only appoint new board members.  

Therefore, in reality, this meant that the outgoing board were required to appoint the incoming board. Given the complicated nature of the takeover it was felt by both the MCT and GMFC board that it was important to have in place board members who were involved and aware of the ongoing situation to ensure stability was maintained for the club.  

In addition to the complications around the takeover, there was also a further issue that required consideration. The rules of the SPFL require that following any transfer of ownership of a professional football club that the league is formally notified within a very short timeframe of the change in owners.  

With all these issues present at the same time, it was vitally important to have board members identified who were known to the existing board and fully aware of the details of the takeover and familiar with the business plan for the club. It was for these reasons why the present MCT nominees were appointed to the club board.  

Proposed Director Pathway

As alluded to above, the rules governing the club do not fully suit the objectives of a community owned club. The current set of rules have not been updated for a significant period of time and do not reflect recent changes in relation to companies’ law or good practice.  

Over the past few months a new set of articles has been drafted that brings the rules up to date and will help make ongoing changes to the club articles easier to make. The final articles will be published at Companies House easily available for everyone to see.  

One of the key parts that we wish to include in the rules is to have a mechanism set in place where MCT Members can clearly see a pathway to be able to be elected to club Director.  

Pathway to Greenock Morton Board

Currently there are four representatives on the club board nominated from MCT, this majority board presence is proposed to continue. The representatives can serve for a maximum term of three years before seeking re-election.  

When a MCT nominee stands down it is proposed that any MCT member that has served for at least two years as an MCT director would become eligible for election to the club board.

Going on this basis, this means that Graham McLennan will require to seek re-election at the next club AGM; Gordon Ritchie will require to seek re-election at the following years club AGM, and Graham Barr and Stewart Farmer require re-election at the following AGM. Naturally this is on the basis that they so wish to seek re-election. 

It is important for the success of the club, and MCT, that members of each board are committed to the hard work involved and have a skillset that brings value to each board. Therefore, the successful nominee must also complete a competency-based assessment, set by the club board, to the satisfaction of the club board. It would be envisaged that this would be on an initiative where the candidate has brought added value to the club, MCT or both. The club board would be permitted to reject the nominee, though this would only be envisaged to be on exceptional circumstances and the appointment would not be unreasonably withheld. 

The Proposed Election Process

We are proposing that an election be held for MCT members to select the new MCT representatives to the club board.

We believe it's important to give the MCT membership the ability to democratically vote candidate(s) onto the football club board, with the nominee(s) with the highest number of votes being successful. The competency-based assessment mentioned before would also still be applicable.

We welcome MCT member feedback on this process that we have proposed. If you have any thoughts or feedback please don't hesitate to get in touch at communications@mortonclubtogether.co.uk

Conclusion

We apologise for the length of this communication and appreciate that it may not be the most exciting MCT news you’ve read.  

However, we hope it provides some context to the current board but also clearly demonstrates our commitment to continually evolve Greenock Morton under MCT stewardship and that you can follow a pathway from the Cowshed, Sinclair Street or the Main Stand to the football club boardroom. 

Edited by Greacen2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only right of veto here exists at the GMFC board level, not at the MCT level. At the GMFC board level they can reject a candidate who fails a competency test of the board's devising. There is no analog on the other side; there's no mechanism for MCT to recall or otherwise oust a non-MCT-based director.

It's also the case, from this email, that there is no proportional investment requirement - or indeed any other requirement - for directors not from the ranks of MCT, except that they remain in a minority on the Board. That is, hypothetically, you could have MCT owning virtually all of the club, and having six directors on the board, and then five directors who are in no way accountable to MCT's membership in general or its GMFC board members in particular, and in fact hold the right of veto over their appointment in the case of a resignation and proposed addition (there being five and five in that case, rather than five and six.)

I think some of these board guys forget who works for whom here. I'm all for their expertise and their hard work, but if they have confidence in these things they would surely, then, be comfortable with the club's owners (that's us) having a similar right of veto to the one that they want to enjoy.

The pathway to the GMFC board is a good one. I'm pleased with these suggestions. But the door is absolutely wide open for the MCT membership to be treated as walking wallets who are accountable to unelected board members who very possibly have no financial stake in the club themselves, when the exact opposite should be the case.

 

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TRVMP said:

The only right of veto here exists at the GMFC board level, not at the MCT level. At the GMFC board level they can reject a candidate who fails a competency test of the board's devising. There is no analog on the other side; there's no mechanism for MCT to recall or otherwise oust a non-MCT-based director.

It's also the case, from this email, that there is no proportional investment requirement - or indeed any other requirement - for directors not from the ranks of MCT, except that they remain in a minority on the Board. That is, hypothetically, you could have MCT owning virtually all of the club, and having six directors on the board, and then five directors who are in no way accountable to MCT's membership in general or its GMFC board members in particular, and in fact hold the right of veto over their appointment in the case of a resignation and proposed addition (there being five and five in that case, rather than five and six.)

I think some of these board guys forget who works for whom here. I'm all for their expertise and their hard work, but if they have confidence in these things they would surely, then, be comfortable with the club's owners (that's us) having a similar right of veto to the one that they want to enjoy.

The pathway to the GMFC board is a good one. I'm pleased with these suggestions. But the door is absolutely wide open for the MCT membership to be treated as walking wallets who are accountable to unelected board members who very possibly have no financial stake in the club themselves, when the exact opposite should be the case.

 

Definitely progress but there needs to be some accountability at the board level. If MCT members can propose and vote through someone should be removed at any point (or yearly instead of waiting 3 years) that might fill parts of the gap though. That should force the MCT nominee to step aside if it is one and if its not then there should be a majority MCT to vote them out from the GMFC board. 

The other part that I'm not sure about is that the pathway could be 5 years (2 on MCT board and waiting 3 til someone's term is up on the GMFC board). 

With the two points combined it's still quite a closed shop. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t have a problem per se with the board having the ability to appoint new members without MCT approval, or with there being a possibility of directors being appointed without necessarily having a financial stake in the club.  There are many valid reasons for these types of appointments such as if they are bringing valuable skills and experience to the table, or performing a key role within the club.  Ultimately, the members nominate & elect MCT representatives into the board and I think they should be allowed to do their job without the possibility of being stymied by needing to put every appointment to a vote of MCT members.  

That said, I agree there could definitely be room for improvement on these proposals.  At least there is an effort being made to be more transparent, and they are inviting feedback & suggested improvements so this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

I don’t have a problem per se with the board having the ability to appoint new members without MCT approval, or with there being a possibility of directors being appointed without necessarily having a financial stake in the club.  There are many valid reasons for these types of appointments such as if they are bringing valuable skills and experience to the table, or performing a key role within the club.  Ultimately, the members nominate & elect MCT representatives into the board and I think they should be allowed to do their job without the possibility of being stymied by needing to put every appointment to a vote of MCT members.  

That said, I agree there could definitely be room for improvement on these proposals.  At least there is an effort being made to be more transparent, and they are inviting feedback & suggested improvements so this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Aye, as long as there's a majority MCT board I don't really have a problem with external people since they should be able to remove them using their majority. What I'd like to see is normal MCT members being able to vote to replace the MCT board members rather than having to wait 3 years so there is some accountability there. 

I'm not keen on the 2 year pathway thing either because it limits replacements since there's only a small number of people that's applicable too and they might not be interested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reminder that Director voting ends at 8pm UK time tonight (so about two hours from when this post was made.)

I voted for two of the five candidates. I think all of them have their merits and there's no bad candidate there, but two of them stood out to me above the others.

Edited by TRVMP

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope to use stadium for other events but couldn't go into detail

Expects new players this month and 1 very soon apparently( heard that before GR) Emphasised the need for a striker once again.

Getting good value on our loan deals, Dumbarton and Annan paying more than average rate.

Desire to stay full time.

New Operations Manager in place and will take on most tasks a typical CEO undertakes.

Decision to patch Dev team was purely down to lack of numbers, wasn't a financial one albeit, we have gained financially from it.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MCT have sent out their own summary, which made one amendment to a comment made on the night:

Quote

The Greenock Morton Football Club Board would like to place on record a correction. It was stated that the disbanding of the Greenock Morton Development Squad was an unanimous decision at club board level, this is in fact not correct. It was a majority decision at club board level. 

Fair enough. Based on what was said, and the need to prioritize the first team, and the fact that we have a pyramid system that allows players to go out on loan, for what it's worth I think it was the right decision. There's no point in having a bridge squad between youth and first team if we have neither the numbers nor the quality to justify it. It makes more sense for players who aren't going to make the grade at Morton to transition to another level of football, for those good enough to join the first team squad, and for those in the middle to spend time out on loan.

  • Upvote 1

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TRVMP said:

MCT have sent out their own summary, which made one amendment to a comment made on the night:

Fair enough. Based on what was said, and the need to prioritize the first team, and the fact that we have a pyramid system that allows players to go out on loan, for what it's worth I think it was the right decision. There's no point in having a bridge squad between youth and first team if we have neither the numbers nor the quality to justify it. It makes more sense for players who aren't going to make the grade at Morton to transition to another level of football, for those good enough to join the first team squad, and for those in the middle to spend time out on loan.

Disbanding the Development Team is absolutely the correct decision. As you say, if we have players who have outgrown the U18s but aren't ready for the first team then we can pick a suitable level of the pyramid to loan them out to. Not only, in my opinion, is it more beneficial to players, but it saves us circa £100,000 a year. It's a no brainer. 

  • Upvote 1

You address me by my proper title, you little bollocks! 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/7/2022 at 8:30 PM, Madton said:

Hope to use stadium for other events but couldn't go into detail

Expects new players this month and 1 very soon apparently( heard that before GR) Emphasised the need for a striker once again.

Getting good value on our loan deals, Dumbarton and Annan paying more than average rate.

Desire to stay full time.

New Operations Manager in place and will take on most tasks a typical CEO undertakes.

Decision to patch Dev team was purely down to lack of numbers, wasn't a financial one albeit, we have gained financially from it.

 

 

 

 

GR a few weeks ago we will bring in a few players this month.

He really needs to learn his lesson with the stuff he says in public!

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did bring in a player and the board do not (and should not) dictate specific signings for the manager.

Take your latest tantrum elsewhere. 

  • 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

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

We did bring in a player and the board do not (and should not) dictate specific signings for the manager.

Take your latest tantrum elsewhere. 

So you've actually agreed with my point, he shouldn't be promising new players( multiple signings) in public.

Cheers champ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Madton said:

So you've actually agreed with my point, he shouldn't be promising new players( multiple signings) in public.

Cheers champ.

If you think that's a 'promise' for you to throw your toys out of the pram over, then you must live a very sheltered existence. 

  • 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

  • 2 months later...

Went under the radar on here with the anniversary of Imrie getting the job, but MCT announced that as of Hogmanay that'll be £500K put into the club since contributions started, with membership currently at 945.

The stories coming from Inverness and Kirkcaldy of impending financial meltdowns while Hamilton continue to be a basket case suggest there couldn't have been a better time to get our house in order with a break-even budget. The security of having fan fundraising in place is certainly looking preferable to relying on one rich backer who could walk at any time when you look at where other clubs relying on that model find themselves.

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Oh Lord, Brian Wake

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

Went under the radar on here with the anniversary of Imrie getting the job, but MCT announced that as of Hogmanay that'll be £500K put into the club since contributions started, with membership currently at 945.

The stories coming from Inverness and Kirkcaldy of impending financial meltdowns while Hamilton continue to be a basket case suggest there couldn't have been a better time to get our house in order with a break-even budget. The security of having fan fundraising in place is certainly looking preferable to relying on one rich backer who could walk at any time when you look at where other clubs relying on that model find themselves.

While I agree there's a lot of positives, it sounds like Dalrada dug us out a bit of a hole at one point and is essentially a rich backer. 

The good thing for me though is that the interview with their guy name checked Sam Robinson who has really impressed me since he got involved with MCT so people within the club are actively seeking (and getting) investment. Everything you've listed will support this though so all in all a positive year. 

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TRVMP said:

Certainly the Dalrada contract can't be underestimated, but community ownership was never at odds with corporate sponsorship. It's testament to the good work people are doing within the club that a major sponsor like this was tempted in the first place.

That last bit is the point I was trying to make. It's not simply about community ownership but things like this will make getting external investment easier. 

  • 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...