Morton Club Together Updates

[irnbru]

3 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

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.

The way I read it is the veto is only over who, not how. This leaves it open to shares being sold with terms that might not be as entirely favourable or scrutinised. 

I'm not suggesting the MCT board wouldn't act in the clubs best interest but I'd like a vote on the eventual terms - not just the ideal of selling shares in any way. 

[Madton]

12 minutes ago, irnbru said:

The way I read it is the veto is only over who, not how. This leaves it open to shares being sold with terms that might not be as entirely favourable or scrutinised. 

I'm not suggesting the MCT board wouldn't act in the clubs best interest but I'd like a vote on the eventual terms - not just the ideal of selling shares in any way. 

Think there needs to be an element of trust in the GMFC board here.

We clear need investment, they clearly know the people in question and will undoubtedly have done background checks. They are not going to sell us doon the water to the next Hugh Scott. If they don't pay up, they lose their shares so we are fully protected.

I don't think we need to know each individual agreement, knowing who they are is enough.

I'll be bitterly disappointed if we say no to additional income streams  It's utter madness for me when we all want Dougie to have the best budget possible to give us the best chance of success.

[TRVMP]

3 hours ago, Madton said:

Think there needs to be an element of trust in the GMFC board here.

We clear need investment, they clearly know the people in question and will undoubtedly have done background checks. They are not going to sell us doon the water to the next Hugh Scott. If they don't pay up, they lose their shares so we are fully protected.

I don't think we need to know each individual agreement, knowing who they are is enough.

I'll be bitterly disappointed if we say no to additional income streams  It's utter madness for me when we all want Dougie to have the best budget possible to give us the best chance of success.

Selling your assets isn't an income stream. It's selling your assets. An income stream is something like away kits or match streams. Once we part with our shares, they're gone unless we are in a position to buy them back. Once we drop below 75%, I'd wager we'll never, ever get it back.

I'm not against external investment on principle, not at all. I'm against it on the current terms, which will see us lose our 75% voting power, stipulate ongoing payment against an arbitrary valuation... Let's assume that's even enforcable - what's been mooted now is a fixed sum on a ten-year timescale in an inflationary environment. Will the MCT contribution be similarly frozen, or are we going to be asked to increase? 

I think we give the MCT board (this is their decision, not GMFC's) plenty of trust already. But this is our money, our capital and our ownership in play here, and that cannot be a matter of trust. It needs to be very carefully scrutinized. And for the reasons above, I'm a No vote. 

[TaunTon]

Stuart Duncan resigns from the board.

'Morton Club Together director, Stuart Duncan, has resigned from the board with immediate effect. Stuart was elected onto the board in December 2021 and led our Operations team. We wish him well for the future.

At this time, we will be continuing to operate as a board of five up until the MCT AGM, which is due to be held in early September..... 
 

 

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, Madton said:

Think there needs to be an element of trust in the GMFC board here.

We clear need investment, they clearly know the people in question and will undoubtedly have done background checks. They are not going to sell us doon the water to the next Hugh Scott. If they don't pay up, they lose their shares so we are fully protected.

I don't think we need to know each individual agreement, knowing who they are is enough.

I'll be bitterly disappointed if we say no to additional income streams  It's utter madness for me when we all want Dougie to have the best budget possible to give us the best chance of success.

1) I'm not sure an element of trust has in fact be established, when nobody knew leading MCT figures like Gordon Ritchie at all eighteen (if not twelve months ago). For an example of how a fan-owned but not fan-run club can fail to act in the best interests of anyone other than its office-holders, check in on any Stirling Albion thread on P and B. 

Fan ownership requires more scrutiny and not less, because the people on the MCT board are acting only as representatives. Not all representative board members hold on to this mindset though. 

2) Tying 'investment' to Imrie's budget is entirely the wrong mindset. What happens if and eventually when Imrie leaves? Do our investors get the right to pull out? Are 'patrons' going to pull their funding as well because there's some dinosaur figure in the dugout yet again? The current ownership and investment model is clearly sufficient to hand out two year deals to players like Skittles right now, so this link to the first team budget should be rejected. 

While the Q and A gave a lot of information, the tangible things that any investment would do off the park to develop sustainable revenue streams need to be identified and given clear priority over what I hope was a populist sales pitch about bigger budgets. If MCT convince me that this is a serious development of the club's infrastructure, then I'd be inclined to vote yes. Not for a vague wishlist. 

Edited May 30 by vikingTON

[irnbru]

11 hours ago, Madton said:

Think there needs to be an element of trust in the GMFC board here.

We clear need investment, they clearly know the people in question and will undoubtedly have done background checks. They are not going to sell us doon the water to the next Hugh Scott. If they don't pay up, they lose their shares so we are fully protected.

I don't think we need to know each individual agreement, knowing who they are is enough.

I'll be bitterly disappointed if we say no to additional income streams  It's utter madness for me when we all want Dougie to have the best budget possible to give us the best chance of success.

Agree to an extent that some investment would be good and we can't know every detail. But I think effectively having shares on loan (which seems to be an option) or getting rid no questions asked is a pretty big difference and one the members need a vote on. 

[Mr.Blue]

Stuart Duncan leaving after less than 7 months in post is a strange one. I wonder if its been due to differing opinions on the pending investment?

[capitanus]

On 5/31/2022 at 6:19 AM, Mr.Blue said:

Stuart Duncan leaving after less than 7 months in post is a strange one. I wonder if its been due to differing opinions on the pending investment?

It could be for personal reasons, family reasons or even health reasons.  As much as I've been critical of Stuart over the years, and justifiable at times too, I hope all is well with him.

[Brian Skelton]

Get the bunting out we're going to have a party.

[port-ton]

I see on the tele website Gordon Ritchie and Stewart Farmer are stepping down from the MCT board but are staying on as Morton Directors. Does this mean that MCT doesn't have a majority vote on board decisions now? 

 

[Mr.Blue]

On 7/18/2022 at 6:28 PM, Brian Skelton said:

Get the bunting out we're going to have a party.

Why?

[RealTonKid]

It’s concerning with so many resignations from the MCT board. It kinda feels like no-one wants to be left holding the baby.

[vikingTON]

26 minutes ago, RealTonKid said:

It’s concerning with so many resignations from the MCT board. It kinda feels like no-one wants to be left holding the baby.

Three of them have to stand down each year (IIRC) under the rules. Now that it's up and running, I'd say that two stepping down is probably better to balance between continuity and accountability, but I don't read too much into the resignations because of that reality.

The number of unprompted resignations appears to be one and not one of any significance from the outside perspective. 

[dunning1874]

There has been (mostly in the squad thread rather than this) a colossal amount of speculative shite throughout this summer and especially in the last two weeks. If we're going to pass judgements on MCT I would rather we were doing it on the basis of facts instead of bullshit conjecture about investors mandating team selections or guesswork about budgets, so on that note let's actually deal with the one pertinent factual point at hand.

There is a very important discussion to be had around the whole issue of resigning from MCT board but still being on GMFC board. Of course in practice anyone who does so is still considered an MCT representative, but it should really be codified somehow in the MCT articles how this works in terms of the MCT majority on the board. Where's the democratic accountability, and what's in place within the articles to stop someone declaring themselves an MCT representative on the board because they've happened to have bought a membership or have been on the MCT board in the past, and now have aims contrary to the MCT board or membership as a whole?

For example, and I'm well aware this is a melodramatic scenario, someone could be voted onto the MCT board, join the GMFC board with the best of intentions, leave the MCT board as a matter of course without resubmitting themselves for MCT re-election, and evidently going by the positions of Graham Barr, Gordon Ritchie and Stewart Farmer, be considered an MCT representative on the board. Now this is no aspersion being cast on any of those three individuals, however without any sort of specific point within the MCT articles to address this, if it's as simple as 'you were once co-opted onto the board as an MCT representative, hence you are always part of the MCT majoirty on the GMFC board' there is nothing to stop someone who used to be on the MCT board, has remained on the GMFC board and since became employed by the outside investor voting in favour of said outside investor and becoming their de facto representative, even when no MCT member actually votes in favour of this.

That's a very extreme scenario, but it is nevertheless possible. I get that things moved far faster than MCT expected from an investment vehicle taking a stake in the club to actually owning the club and therefore the articles did not evolve the way they should have if a fan ownership organisation had been the plan from the start. There's a whole minefield to navigate there and my raising this is not a dig at anyone who is in a leadership position. The fact is though that as rank and file members of MCT we have absolutely no power to declare a lack of confidence in board members of MCT, never mind GMFC.

So if GMFC board members, who let's not forget are only there because fans' money put them there, are unaccountable to the MCT board never mind membership, how the hell do we actually have any power whatsoever in practice?

Edited July 22 by dunning1874

[vikingTON]

When is the AGM likely to be? The issue above needs to be addressed with a much clearer protocol and distinction of responsibilities going forward - because even if it works now it is open to misuse against the membership's interests in the future. 

We also need to address the sponsorship claim that has disappeared off the radar, and a look at the club's accounts could not be more timely. 

 

[port-ton]

8 hours ago, vikingTON said:

 We also need to address the sponsorship claim that has disappeared off the radar

 

Not that far off the radar to be fair, approximately 40 miles

[9 Strathblane Crescent]

16 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

There has been (mostly in the squad thread rather than this) a colossal amount of speculative shite throughout this summer and especially in the last two weeks. If we're going to pass judgements on MCT I would rather we were doing it on the basis of facts instead of bullshit conjecture about investors mandating team selections or guesswork about budgets, so on that note let's actually deal with the one pertinent factual point at hand.

There is a very important discussion to be had around the whole issue of resigning from MCT board but still being on GMFC board. Of course in practice anyone who does so is still considered an MCT representative, but it should really be codified somehow in the MCT articles how this works in terms of the MCT majority on the board. Where's the democratic accountability, and what's in place within the articles to stop someone declaring themselves an MCT representative on the board because they've happened to have bought a membership or have been on the MCT board in the past, and now have aims contrary to the MCT board or membership as a whole?

For example, and I'm well aware this is a melodramatic scenario, someone could be voted onto the MCT board, join the GMFC board with the best of intentions, leave the MCT board as a matter of course without resubmitting themselves for MCT re-election, and evidently going by the positions of Graham Barr, Gordon Ritchie and Stewart Farmer, be considered an MCT representative on the board. Now this is no aspersion being cast on any of those three individuals, however without any sort of specific point within the MCT articles to address this, if it's as simple as 'you were once co-opted onto the board as an MCT representative, hence you are always part of the MCT majoirty on the GMFC board' there is nothing to stop someone who used to be on the MCT board, has remained on the GMFC board and since became employed by the outside investor voting in favour of said outside investor and becoming their de facto representative, even when no MCT member actually votes in favour of this.

That's a very extreme scenario, but it is nevertheless possible. I get that things moved far faster than MCT expected from an investment vehicle taking a stake in the club to actually owning the club and therefore the articles did not evolve the way they should have if a fan ownership organisation had been the plan from the start. There's a whole minefield to navigate there and my raising this is not a dig at anyone who is in a leadership position. The fact is though that as rank and file members of MCT we have absolutely no power to declare a lack of confidence in board members of MCT, never mind GMFC.

So if GMFC board members, who let's not forget are only there because fans' money put them there, are unaccountable to the MCT board never mind membership, how the hell do we actually have any power whatsoever in practice?

Good post but that's only scratching the surface of what needs to change. Many folk on here have concerns about how the club is being run and need answers. What happened to being "open and transparent" when even the board of MCT are being kept in the dark by the board of GMFC. Not always seen eye to eye with Capitanus but his 'Ivry buddy chips in munny' and don't look for answers looks like an ongoing trend.

[TONofmemories]

1 hour ago, 9 Strathblane Crescent said:

Good post but that's only scratching the surface of what needs to change. Many folk on here have concerns about how the club is being run and need answers. What happened to being "open and transparent" when even the board of MCT are being kept in the dark by the board of GMFC. Not always seen eye to eye with Capitanus but his 'Ivry buddy chips in munny' and don't look for answers looks like an ongoing trend.

You had the perfect chance to implement change, Stuart, but opted to throw toys out the pram and leave in a huff didn't you

[port-ton]

5 hours ago, port-ton said:

Not that far off the radar to be fair, approximately 40 miles

Interesting to see that one of our direct league rivals managed to not mess up negotiations with this brand as well. 

I'm sure the decent chunk of money they get from it will come in handy. 

Will MCT members ever get to hear about how at the EGM it was talked about like it was a done deal and now we get to watch competitors reaping the benefits of sponsorships and building relationships with major brands? 

[Charles_Joe]

Is it because Save Heat and Blair’s got there first?