Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

MCT notice of extraordinary general meeting


Recommended Posts

Posted this in MCT updates thread but probably deserves its own thread as TRVMP said in there. 

Email sent to MCT members earlier. 

 

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 -->                                     

Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but only with religion do good people do bad things!

 

32.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help but wonder if this was the plan all along...

McGhee needs some support, there's no-one backing him up.
Hayes playing it forward, Bell being forced to do it all alone, now forward from Marr, here's Ritchie, still Andy Ritchie, look at the control...

That is a marvellous goal from Andy Ritchie. Twenty minutes on the clock and Morton's supporters come alive. A goal which epitomises the control, the arrogance, the cheek of Andy Ritchie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if it's them as well, and they're not going to want to invest more money to have a minority say in the running of the club. 

My worry would be that with their allies currently on the board they'd be able to to achieve a defacto majority ownership without investing the funds needed to become majority owners of the club. 

If the club is in dire straights financially and needs major investment after only a year of fan ownership then I'd probably rather we just sold ownership of the club to them and let them spend their own money rather than ours. 

I don't think I'm ready to give up the " dream" of fan ownership yet, especially if it gives certain people a mile when they've only paid for an inch, so they'll have to be pretty convincing at EGM to gain my vote. 

More than willing to be convinced otherwise though if its genuinely in the best interests of the club and its future. 

Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but only with religion do good people do bad things!

 

32.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this earlier on the MCT Updates thread;

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-posting from the other thread:

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?

  • Upvote 2

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Waverley said:

I posted this earlier on the MCT Updates thread;

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.

As of the last confirmation statement of share capital, there are 4,017,816 shares in circulation. Given that GC owned around (not precisely, but around) 90% of the club, and MCT took GC's share, unless there has been a share issue that I missed, there are probably closer to 400,000 shares held by minority shareholders.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lot of information on that email and asking people to vote after a meeting without having a think about it isn't great. 

I'd hope MCT rethink think this, answer some questions and then have the vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously interested to find out where the interest which has sparked this has come from and that's a pertinent issue, among other many valid questions around it which have already been covered in this thread and will need to be addressed at the EGM, but on the face of it it's a positive step, and if it's in any way enforceable as opposed to dressing it up nicely then benchmarking a minimum investment against MCT contributions as a condition of selling the shares is a great idea.

If this approach is going to bring more income into the club than the Patron model while also ensuring the MCT shareholding can't fall below 50.1%, then great. What does need answered in detail is whether this is just being done with a specific individual or group of individuals in mind, or if it's a blanket rule that the shares can drop below 75% at any time from now, to any investor, in any quantity.

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

I need to see more detail on this before coming to a firm conclusion. If I remember correctly this was mentioned at a previous meeting so I'm not surprised that an EGM has been called to discuss/decide. Hopefully many of the legitimate questions above will be dealt with but if not then the membership has the power to reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, vikingTON said:

I largely agree with the rest of your post but do not understand this premise. Why should we need to raise money to 'put a decent team on the park'? That's what season tickets, gate reciepts, league prize money, hospitality, sponsorship and cheap tat merchandise are all for. That's how other professional football clubs generate revenue and if you convert 60% of that into a first team wage budget then that's you sorted in lower league Scottish football. 

MCT should not just be boosting the wage budget through capital investment and outside investors shouldn't be doing it either. If that's their pitch, then they shouldn't be darkening the door of the club because that's the Dundee route to yet another admin event right there. 

If outside investors want to partner with MCT to run the club professionally and use their investment to develop the revenue generating capacity of the club, then that's another thing entirely. There's clearly scope for developing the stadium and the area around it in a way that suits the club and private Investors, and we absolutely need a revenue stream that is not dependent on match days.

So long as the plans are transparent and the terms reasonable, then we should IMO be open to that because I don't see (and never have) 100% fan ownership being the most effective model to drag us into the 21st century. 

The crucial word in my post is “if”.  I agree with everything you say above, setting out alternative ways to be financially viable. I do think though that some folk don’t realise that wanting cheaper gate prices while at the same time bemoaning the quality of the squad are not unconnected things. We need to develop a more viable business model and success on the park is a big part of that due to prize money. External investment as you suggest it can be a good thing but need to beware of shysters. The idea should be to expand the business by expanding income and turnover.

"Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the alternative income stream route is a potentially valuable one.  Imagine if the Norseman was a decent pub with a function suite and a load of other stuff.  These things cost money, but if planned right should generate a return on investment.

"Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, irnbru said:

Not a lot of information on that email and asking people to vote after a meeting without having a think about it isn't great. 

I'd hope MCT rethink think this, answer some questions and then have the vote. 

Its not often I agree with you, but i agree with you on this point.

SACK THE BOARD!

8 minutes ago, ChampTon said:

Thanks Capitanus for searching up my recent posts to downvote me 👍 you're a totally bitter cunt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 6:37 PM, AyrshireTon said:

Can't help but wonder if this was the plan all along...

This.  Called it.

There is no shortage of useful idiots been on a using here.  I'm glad that I never gave a single penny to this elaborate sham.

  • Downvote 2

SACK THE BOARD!

8 minutes ago, ChampTon said:

Thanks Capitanus for searching up my recent posts to downvote me 👍 you're a totally bitter cunt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparenrly the Easdales are now Billionaires. 

 

I'm not sure I'm happy where the money is coming from if it is them but its probably the only way we can get significant capital investment to actually grow the revenue potential of the club (as others have said). MCT lost my subscription after not answering an email about Lithgow and a few other things that fucked me off so ive no real say in this but as long as we retain the majority and cannot drop below 50 +1 then I'm sound with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don’t think for a minute there’s anybody scamming anybody here, but I do think it’s very possible that a certain pair of local businessmen were interested in the club but not on the Raes’ terms at the particular moment in time for whatever reason, and when MCT came along they identified that it wasn’t (in their opinion at least*) likely to be up to the job  but would take over the club in a relatively clean way, and therefore if they held off a few years during which they could establish themselves as prominent backers (see last year’s kit launch) then they’d be able to acquire the club in a better position than they would have directly from the Rae family.
 

*The jury remains out on the capability of MCT (purely due to the early stage, I’m not dismissing the project out of hand), but there’s enough doubt, if you can call it that, about the future of it with regards to its ability to transform the club into a top flight challenger/team that would make this a good time to make an opening gambit such as a small share acquisition in the name of investment imo…if that was the strategy you were pursuing.

 

To be clear, I’m not saying I think this is definitely what’s happening, but I do think it’s a realistic possibility and if this is the strategy of said businessmen, I’d say it’s a very astute one, in all honesty, and not something that we should see as a particularly bad thing as a concept. It’d be utterly absurd to be dismissing the possibility of a takeover by such a party if the price was right, imo.

Edited by EanieMeany

AWMSC

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...