Morton Club Together Updates

[TRVMP]

2 minutes ago, HamCam said:

In my experience many sponsors/contributors, especially in the lower leagues, are often fans and the 'investment' is not necessarily driven by financial considerations - football is a strange emotive world. When MCT launched I recollect they were talking about 5/6 parties coming forward at £25,000 - what happened? I agree the onus is on MCT and/or the club to translate commercial interest into contributions rather than simply rely on the ordinary punter to add a further £10/month - a real challenge in the current economic climate.

Corporate sponsorship done for clear cost-benefit reasons is the exception, not the rule. All kinds of charities are looking for owners and executives acting with their heart and not their head. Yes, companies will want their logo front and center and they'll want to see they're getting *some*thing in return, but lower-league football is far from the only money pit that otherwise ruthless businessmen will sink money into if they think it's worthwhile.

What is absolutely certain, 100% of the time, is that the organizations who work to make themselves visible, relevant, energetic and difference-making will in the long run outearn those that are waiting for the phone to ring. 100% of the time this is true.

We may not be competing with Dumbarton or St. Mirren for sponsorship - a Morton fan with a company checkbook and a social mandate isn't going to go and sponsor Ayr United. But what he might do is allocate money to a mental health charity, or refugees, or a food bank, or a youth basketball club, if Morton aren't top of his mind at that particular moment. Morton are competing against *everyone*, not other football clubs, for money and attention. As such, if MCT is looking for people or companies to part with a considerable sum of money, they cannot wait for it to happen because it will not work when others are actively soliciting it.

[Jamie_M]

15 minutes ago, HamCam said:

In my experience many sponsors/contributors, especially in the lower leagues, are often fans and the 'investment' is not necessarily driven by financial considerations - football is a strange emotive world. When MCT launched I recollect they were talking about 5/6 parties coming forward at £25,000 - what happened? I agree the onus is on MCT and/or the club to translate commercial interest into contributions rather than simply rely on the ordinary punter to add a further £10/month - a real challenge in the current economic climate.

The MCT website FAQs say we get £50k from patrons so maybe they have only managed to get 2.

[TRVMP]

If the individual patrons are anonymous folk with a ton of cash then 1) good for them, that's very generous and 2) MCT should be schmoozing as many other potential candidates as possible.

[Jamie_M]

49 minutes ago, TaunTon said:

Are you suggesting that the club should have told the manager who to play?

No. But everyone should be on the same page that every pound is a prisoner that we should be fighting for. 

37 minutes ago, HamCam said:

Do you not thing the manager was making a point putting out a team largely comprising those that are signed up for next season even if it effectively minimized our chances of a win and sixth place?

And if everyone was on that same page, maybe making such a point by forfeiting that chance wouldn't have seemed like the best idea.

[port-ton]

I saw the other day that the lighthouse are doing an evening with imrie for a tenner a head. Don't see why MCT aren't doing things like that in a decent sized venue to fundraise while local pubs are smart enough to capitalise on his popularity. 

 

[dmcewan16]

Any news on when season ticket prices will be published? Need to get these out as it's a major income

[irnbru]

7 minutes ago, dmcewan16 said:

Any news on when season ticket prices will be published? Need to get these out as it's a major income

I'd have liked to have seen the push for more MCT money rolled up into a bigger campaign, i.e. discounted season tickets for members, getting players signed up, kits launched, etc and making reference to how it all helps. 

Asking for money just because we need it (which we all already know) does kill the mood a bit after a decent enough season (after how it started). 

1 hour ago, port-ton said:

I saw the other day that the lighthouse are doing an evening with imrie for a tenner a head. Don't see why MCT aren't doing things like that in a decent sized venue to fundraise while local pubs are smart enough to capitalise on his popularity. 

 

Never seen that but the fact he's doing that should probably put an end to the rumours. 

[capitanus]

4 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

Latest MCT email has the begging bowl out. Not great reading and hints at piss poor budget next season. 

Dougie has one massive job to do on a nothing budget it would seem.

'Ivry buddy chips in munny' becomes 'Ivry buddy geez mehr munny'. 

Sad news indeed.

Bus wankers incoming. 

 

[capitanus]

1 hour ago, port-ton said:

I saw the other day that the lighthouse are doing an evening with imrie for a tenner a head. Don't see why MCT aren't doing things like that in a decent sized venue to fundraise while local pubs are smart enough to capitalise on his popularity. 

 

The Shitehouse is possibly the last place which should be hosting any kind of event for Morton supporters or football supporters in general.  

[Jamie_M]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:52 PM, port-ton said:

I saw the other day that the lighthouse are doing an evening with imrie for a tenner a head. Don't see why MCT aren't doing things like that in a decent sized venue to fundraise while local pubs are smart enough to capitalise on his popularity. 

 

Hosted by Gerry as well.

[TRVMP]

Graphic design is my passion

[port-ton]

Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting of Morton Club Together Ltd

 

An extraordinary general meeting of MCT will be held in the Douglas Rae (Hospitality) lounge at Cappielow Park, Sinclair Street, Greenock at 7:00pm on Tuesday 7th June 2022. There will be one item on the agenda:

 

1) The MCT board seeks permission under Article 4.4 to reduce it’s shareholding to a level below 75% of the total shares in Greenock Morton FC Ltd.

 

We are seeking permission to sell groups of shares in the club to individuals and companies who have expressed an interest in investing in the club. In doing so, we will maintain majority ownership (our ownership will not drop below 50.1%). In this way, we can secure additional and ongoing funding for the club and for the first team budget.

 

In an example of this proposal, if an individual or company purchased 5% of the available shares, we would require them to match your MCT contributions. So if MCT continues to contribute around £180,000 per year, the individual or company purchasing that 5% share would be required to contribute £18,000 each year. In the ideal scenario, every £1 each MCT member contributes becomes a £1.80 contribution to the club budget. 

 

To confirm, we will continue to maintain majority ownership and continue to be a community owned club, owned by you, our MCT members.

 

We are recommending to the membership that you approve this motion. 

 

Please sign up here if you're able to attend in person at Cappielow.

 

If you are unable to attend this meeting in person, please reply to this email to advise us and a Zoom link will be sent to you.

 

If you wish to vote by proxy due to your unavailability, please reply to this email and let us know your vote be 5pm on Monday 6th June 2022.

 

Thanks,

 

MCT Board of Directors -->                                     

[port-ton]

Never attended something like this and know very little about EGMs etc so will reserve judgement to hear other people's opinions before I form mine. 

1. Do we get to see the clubs finances before we vote on this? 

2. Do we get to vote on which companies and investors we sell our shares to? Do we even get to know who they are before voting? 

Initially feel torn between being happy with outside investment while maintaining control and also worried about the slippery slope after only a year of fan ownership as can't help but feel we know exactly which way that's heading. 

 

 

 

[TRVMP]

In my opinion this should have its own thread. This is a very significant development. 

Owning >50% of a company is of course majority ownership but >75% - as GC had, and MCT now has - is effectively free rein to run the business without recourse to votes. That is, with 75% of shareholding you can (for example) undertake a share issue without a vote. Plenty of other stuff besides.

I totally understand why an investor on the sidelines wanting to put money into Morton would want equity of their own. I also understand why preventing the outcome above - preventing MCT from being able to (for example) dilute the investor's shareholding by undertaking a share issue, or materially altering how the club is run - would be important to such an investor.

But what I'd like to get out of this meeting is:

1) How does assauging that investor's valid concerns help the club in the long term? That is, if control of the club by MCT - community ownership - is seen as a valuable exercise in and of itself, how does reducing the community owner's ability to act autonomously square with our long term future? In short: if any special resolution is now able to be effectively vetoed by a minority shareholder or group thereof, what good is the 50.1% ownership?
1.1) To that point, the email example says someone might own 5% of the club. Do MCT envision this being so neatly parceled out (they state they'll sell "groups of shares") and, if so, how will this be achieved? In short: what under this model prevents 49.9% of shares ending up in one individual's hands? Or is that not something we want to prevent?
2) One of MCT's aims was to become a 'hub' for larger-scale investors or patrons. Is this tacit admission that this hasn't panned out? Or are these investors simply much bigger than patrons?
3) And for me, the biggest one - how is this enforceable:

"In an example of this proposal, if an individual or company purchased 5% of the available shares, we would require them to match your MCT contributions."

I will fully and freely admit to not being a UK company law mastermind, but how can such a requirement survive a resale? That is, if GMFC Ltd. and Joe Bloggs make this agreement, and GMFC transfers 5% of the overall shares to Joe Bloggs, then Joe Bloggs immediately sells those shares to Tom Smith, how is Tom Smith liable for anything towards GMFC?

[Waverley]

I'll sell my shares in GMFC, with no strings attached, if anyone's interested. There's probably around 1,000,000 shares out there, held by minority shareholders.

[irnbru]

New mail out. Despite having a yes or no on who, there's no detail on how it will work and it'd still to be decided. I'm out. 

[Renfrew]

Don’t imagine anyone could willingly allow it if they won’t announce who they are

[port-ton]

The email states that once negotiations are agreed there would be another member vote on whether to sell to them and they'd be named. 

I'm not really seeing an issue with that? My only issue with them not being named was that we'd be agreeing to sell to people we didn't know and we'd have no opportunity to reject it when we did find out. 

 

[irnbru]

49 minutes ago, port-ton said:

The email states that once negotiations are agreed there would be another member vote on whether to sell to them and they'd be named. 

I'm not really seeing an issue with that? My only issue with them not being named was that we'd be agreeing to sell to people we didn't know and we'd have no opportunity to reject it when we did find out. 

 

The terms aren't know. Could be give them shares if they meet donations, a one off, etc. It presents a lot of uncertainty. 

Edited May 29 by irnbru

[dunning1874]

35 minutes ago, irnbru said:

The terms aren't know. Could be give them shares if they meet donating, a one off, etc. It presents a lot of uncertainty. 

It also states that the confirmatory vote of the membership will take place after a deal is agreed, so the terms for each investor will surely be put to the membership for that vote as well as disclosing the identity of the investor(s). If the MCT board aren’t providing a satisfactory level of transparency about any individual deal the membership can still vote no to individual investors at that stage.