Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation

[TRVMP]

36 minutes ago, port-ton said:

Laird came across as arrogant at points, the self righteous hero of the situation at others and downright lied in others. All par for the course.

Bonar also made it clear that he wants the members to be communicated with better from the board and came across as someone who doesn’t stand for much nonsense, so hopefully with an increase in his funding he takes a closer look at some of the causes of nonsense over the past months. 

There was the heated moment when someone in the audience called Laird a liar, but at that point the audio wasn't great. What was that all about? 

[port-ton]

Just now, TRVMP said:

There was the heated moment when someone in the audience called Laird a liar, but at that point the audio wasn't great. What was that all about? 

I was on zoom as well so couldn’t hear that bit well either. I know he was lying about being in favour of community ownership and when he was explaining how everything good that had been done was down to him yet everything bad was for the board to answer.

He made clear in his opening statements that the Dalrada deal is much more income than received from MCT members and that’s his true colours on what he really thinks about fan ownership. 
 

I do wonder exactly why that fan was calling him a liar but they moved on pretty sharpish from it. 

[bob_the_builder]

3 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

There was the heated moment when someone in the audience called Laird a liar, but at that point the audio wasn't great. What was that all about? 

That was Graham McLennan in response to Laird’s claim he’d been asked to stand down by the previous MCT board. 

[dunning1874]

I'm reassured that Bonar doesn't have any nefarious intentions from that, though I can't say the same about  some GMFC representatives.

That Bonar openly said yes, he's happy for every MCT member to see the written text of the deal tells us that no one on the GMFC board even asked Dalrada the question of whether that was allowed; they've got a default position of opposition to transparency in all circumstances, when if that document had simply been circulated when the vote opened it would have by itself been an answer to every question anyone could ask.

I'm far more inclined to vote Yes than I was before the meeting, but I'm still not doing so without seeing that agreement.

[TRVMP]

32 minutes ago, bob_the_builder said:

That was Graham McLennan in response to Laird’s claim he’d been asked to stand down by the previous MCT board. 

Thank you. We heard virtually nothing of the exchange on the stream so I'll be interested to hear if anything else comes of this.

[TRVMP]

Anyway, my bottom line is this:

• I feel significantly reassured - but not totally - about the prospect of an 'underground' share issue.
• I feel very reassured about the content of the agreement not having any hidden loopholes in it, and I feel very reassured that even if there were, Dalrada aren't looking for ownership via the back door. I will be emailing to ask for a copy to be 100% sure.

These have me leaning very heavily towards 'Yes' based on the substance of the deal.

• Having had no real opinion on John Laird previously, I am very unimpressed with both his manner, and the substance of most of his responses. His continued evasion over the delays - notwithstanding Brian Bonar's health issues (from which I'm very glad he's on the mend) - was a display of brass neck.

This tilts me somewhere back towards 'No' because Brian made it clear on the call he'd be relying on the Board to effectively get their house in order, and while Laird is not a voting member of the board, he's something of a 'chair' and I think he sets a bad tenor around the place, notwithstanding his business record. I think he's very Rae-like in that he doesn't like accountability, he doesn't like structure, and he operates best in a smoke-filled room with a lot of ambiguity. That, to me, is completely the incorrect approach both for a fan-owned club and for a club that's fiscally dependent on a major sponsor whose entire family are watching us like hawks.

As for MCT:

• I do sympathize with Graham Barr in some ways. It's horrible to be part of a big issue at work that can't be fixed quickly, for which you have responsibility, and for which the hindsight is clear that you should have done differently. I've been there. So on a human level, yeah, I feel for the guy. But he's a director of the club. Everyone involved seems to have full confidence in him. And I just can't understand where that's coming from based on the last few months.
• The same applies to Sam Robinson - admittedly I don't know everything he said tonight because the microphone was rubbish.
• But on the transfer saga alone we've gone from "we kept it quiet for good reasons and while not everyone agrees, we were right" to "there are some aspects of regret" (not verbatim) to tonight's actual apology.
• I really don't get it. Apparently he (Barr) has had some dark nights of the soul, writing things but not publishing them, thinking of speaking out but then not, whatever. I think situations like this call for clarity and based on the last few weeks I just don't think he's up to that.
• That coupled with the train crash rollout of the vote, which got a good amount of discussion tonight, just leaves me scratching my head about how the top brass can look at the current composition and say "yep, they're the guys to get us out of this mess."

That has me leaning back towards 'No.'

However:

• MCT and GMFC are both ultimately correct that MCT has an absolute ton of turnover. It's not an easy job. Not everyone can do it, and most who can will have other things going on.
• There just isn't - as far as I can tell - a bench of talent waiting to fill the spots on the board from the MCT roster.
• Thus I can kind of understand why they (Dalrada) want to stick with the devil they know, and there's enough about the current guys that they can - presumably - be steered towards something productive. I don't actually agree with this but I can see why they would think that.

Finally:

• I think any deal like this is risky. I can well understand why the Bonar family have a six-month get-out clause, and why it's only a year. I have a greater concern that we'll go down the QP route of getting accustomed to being flush, and then it all disappearing. This money's going to Imrie's squad-building: are we permitting multi-year contracts? I hope not.
• I think a deal with a get-out clause and a one-year duration is fundamentally incompatible with aspirations towards Premier League football.
• I think the various yer da's in the audience talking about administration and part-time football should be ashamed of themselves. Fearmongering that even the deal's architects aren't putting out there is just manipulative.

After this Dunning-esque essay, at this exact moment I would abstain. If I can find nothing to worry about in the substance of the agreement, I will vote Yes. I will then treat the future votes over the interim board's appointments, and the review of the business in January, separately from this.

[vikingTON]

Just in now* - I can sympathise with those on the online feed who had a frustrating experience at times. That said. it was always going to be frustrating - including in the room itself - and given the significant meanders of the first half I'm happy that exchanges weren't constantly being repeated for the benefit of the Zoom call. We'd either still be there now or little of substance would have been addressed. The moderatos from Supporters' Direct did a good job in very difficult conditions - not least with guidance on how to handle procedural issues. 

There are lots of issues that couldn't be directly addressed tonight the 3 key points I highlighted in preparation beforehand are below:

1) Using the six month notice - having MCT setting in stone a meeting for (January?) with news of Dalrada's stance going into the 26-27 season is critical. We cannot have this happening again - any future partnership deal needs to be on the table and ready to decide on ASAP. Hopefully this commitment can be taken forward and approved.

2) Board composition - who decides on the remaining 3 members? Unlike some in the room, i don't actually want MCT to necessrily have majority representation on the club board - the right skillsets are needed, and in the short-term there would be a shortfall of candidates given the enormous turnover within MCT itself. Brian Bonar indicated (verbally) that he has no issue with the remaining board members being MCT. which is a verbal reassurance but not strictly necessary IMO.

What I did want greater detail on is how the selection process for new board members would work in the event of a split decision - what if some board members think a candidate is ideal, while others think that they are useless? Who ultimately decides? There wasn't time to address that. While I don't think that MCT requires a majority on the club board, it does require realistic power to prevent any bloc vote emerging on the GMFC board. That's still a longer-term concern for me - but I don't think having the stadium director or adding a 'finance lead' (their words) in the next few months would represent a hostile takeover. 

3) Share issues. This was raised quite rightly by Gordon Ritchie in the meeting (and by @Greacen2000 etc. in submissions for the FAQ document). There was further verbal confirmation that a meeting is planned to adjust GMFC articles to further restrict new share issues. I'd like to see the ball rolling on that meeting right away tbh - set the date; set out that agenda. The current lack of trust/accountability would make this a sensible decision in the final hours of voting.

That said, we have a verbal confirmation at the meeting this evening as well as a video stating this position too: could this realistically be reversed between now and January? The selection of new MCT directors is one way of further insuring against that - a new MCT board that is firmly against accepting dilution of the existing shareholding through rights issues would strengthen this point.

The final - nuclear - option in the events of a rogue rights issue would be to just launch a sack the board campaign: the club needs the relatively united support of the fanbase regardless of whether Dalrada are in the room or not. MCT members can withhold payments - matches can also be turned into hostile environments. So there are still cards to play even if you do not take current officeholders at their word - but moving forwrad on that immediately would set minds at ease.

Overall thoughts: The purpose of the above points is to impose sufficient safety brake measures in this proposal. If the share issue loophole is on track to be closed and if the ball is rolling to have open communication from January '26 on the future of the Dalrada partnership, then the most immediate risks would IMO be mitigated. It is absolutely right however to require those brakes being in place though -  if this were a rolling contract proposal that required MCT to explicitly pull the plug in the future then I would have already voted No. The level of trust in current officeholders at GMFC and certain members of the MCT board is simply nowhere near high enough to commit to a longer term deal.

I have not voted yet, but if the proposal looks more firmly like allowing things to essentially run until January 2026 and then giving all sides a better opportunity to take stock, then I could support that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*half an hour ago, when this tome was started

[SpoonTon]

Laird didn't do himself any favours whatsoever tonight. He had me heading towards a no vote, because he made me feel like we have to just accept his brilliance in allowing us to kick the can down the road for one more year. 

And it still very much feels like that, and I wasn't filled with confidence that anyone currently on the board wants to actually plan for what comes after this funding inevitably disappears. We should always have a contingency which plans for part-time football and significantly reduced costs. I'm not filled with confidence that Laird would want to lead that. 

It was only Brian Bonar who was in any way convincing that he simply wants to give the club some funding. It might not exactly be the longer term investment in the foundations of the club we really need, but it will help the first team in the immediate term and I don't get any feeling that there's anything untoward there at all. I think it's a shame that it probably had to be Brian Bonar himself that gave that reassurance because, for whatever reasons, the club board have failed to really build a good relationship with the MCT membership and the larger fanbase (and something still really didn't sit right with me there). 

[Chicken_Soup]

The points about the article amendment in relation to the share issue, the timing of the AGM in relation to the Dalrada break clause, and Bonar’s willingness to share the contract and forego shirt sponsorship are all really positive.

I’m now fighting hard with myself to park my contempt for the conduct of some of our board members, and keep that separate from Bonar, Dalrada and the details of the deal.

Barr seems like he wants out, and I wish him no ill whatsoever, but that will be best for both parties. Laird and Robinson have established themselves in Dalrada’s good books and are unfortunately going nowhere, so it looks like we’ll just have to swallow that for now. But I think it’s worth saying that the attitude of those two absolutely stinks. The arrogance and the contempt for members/fans they showed tonight are things I’ll remember of both of them. 
 

Bonar showed more willingness to offer transparency in a 10 minute call than the others have throughout this entire process. One of the board members (Duncan?) looking for sympathy for the time and effort they had to put in to create the FAQ document (they genuinely don’t see that’s because they initially withheld so much information, despite opening the vote) was infuriating. 
 

Hopefully their conduct throughout this process energises the membership and positive changes can be made as a result.

[Stevie Aitken's Love Child]

Massive thanks to those that have added updates on the meeting last night, very helpful as I'm out of the country and couldn't attend. 

Was there any indication on the agreement being released for review before the voting window ends? I've noticed on the voting link that the closing date now shows as 11pm on Thursday, so would like to at least see that at a high level before making my own vote. 

I was always leaning towards a yes vote but a few points have niggled me throughout, mainly on the share issue and board composition, and these in effect have now been mitigated somewhat for me. The inclusion of the 6 month review is an essential point, can't be having issues like this again in a year's time.

[TRVMP]

9 minutes ago, Stevie Aitken's Love Child said:

Massive thanks to those that have added updates on the meeting last night, very helpful as I'm out of the country and couldn't attend. 

Was there any indication on the agreement being released for review before the voting window ends? I've noticed on the voting link that the closing date now shows as 11pm on Thursday, so would like to at least see that at a high level before making my own vote. 

I was always leaning towards a yes vote but a few points have niggled me throughout, mainly on the share issue and board composition, and these in effect have now been mitigated somewhat for me. The inclusion of the 6 month review is an essential point, can't be having issues like this again in a year's time.

The hosts flatly refused to release it. Brian Bonar then dialed in later and said anyone who wants to see it can email him. While I don't have his email, he's easily found on LinkedIn.

Every officer who remarked on it was absolutely unequivocal about the share issue, and said it simply would not happen. I forget what the next steps there are to formalize it, but that's a GMFC Articles thing and not an MCT one. Perhaps out of naivete, I choose to take them at their word for now with the belief that they will, indeed, formalize it later.

There was a motion made and passed to ensure the January meeting is scheduled.. I think. It was hard to make it out at times. 

On that subject, while I do appreciate that the move to the MSC was at relatively short notice, and everyone involved here is a volunteer, there is an important point. Far more people dialed in tonight than attended, and for many of us this was out of necessity - I can't take the time out of my professional and family life, not to mention the expense, to be in the room for those meetings. I'm thousands of miles away and I'm far from the only one.

The Articles explicitly state that getting audio-visual parity for these meetings is a requirement, not an added bonus. This is in article 24, assuming that we treat Zoom as an 'overflow room'. This stuff isn't a novelty anymore and really needs to be done professionally, and it's not really acceptable that a majority of those present weren't given audio parity, much less any other kind. 

The meeting chair is empowered to call short a meeting that doesn't meet these standards and if the next meeting has those of us attending by Zoom effectively out of the loop for a good quarter of the conversation, I will be asking them to exercise that right.

So that this gets to the right people I'll be emailing MCT tomorrow with a summary of this request, along with some hints for setting up a room effectively for these things (I have some experience with the tiresome but necessary tasks of rigging up rooms for this kind of thing.)

[irnbru]

5 hours ago, TRVMP said:

The hosts flatly refused to release it. Brian Bonar then dialed in later and said anyone who wants to see it can email him. While I don't have his email, he's easily found on LinkedIn.

Every officer who remarked on it was absolutely unequivocal about the share issue, and said it simply would not happen. I forget what the next steps there are to formalize it, but that's a GMFC Articles thing and not an MCT one. Perhaps out of naivete, I choose to take them at their word for now with the belief that they will, indeed, formalize it later.

There was a motion made and passed to ensure the January meeting is scheduled.. I think. It was hard to make it out at times. 

On that subject, while I do appreciate that the move to the MSC was at relatively short notice, and everyone involved here is a volunteer, there is an important point. Far more people dialed in tonight than attended, and for many of us this was out of necessity - I can't take the time out of my professional and family life, not to mention the expense, to be in the room for those meetings. I'm thousands of miles away and I'm far from the only one.

The Articles explicitly state that getting audio-visual parity for these meetings is a requirement, not an added bonus. This is in article 24, assuming that we treat Zoom as an 'overflow room'. This stuff isn't a novelty anymore and really needs to be done professionally, and it's not really acceptable that a majority of those present weren't given audio parity, much less any other kind. 

The meeting chair is empowered to call short a meeting that doesn't meet these standards and if the next meeting has those of us attending by Zoom effectively out of the loop for a good quarter of the conversation, I will be asking them to exercise that right.

So that this gets to the right people I'll be emailing MCT tomorrow with a summary of this request, along with some hints for setting up a room effectively for these things (I have some experience with the tiresome but necessary tasks of rigging up rooms for this kind of thing.)

Feels like that's how it was chaired a bit. Mentioned that questions from there would come at the end then there was only really one I'm aware of that did get answered. Would have been good to either have a mix or cut off point to try get the involvement more mixed. 

[port-ton]

Ended up voting yes. I was sufficiently convinced by Brian Bonar to take him at face value and the board should thank him thoroughly because as has been said by someone else their go to mode  always seems to be secrecy and lack of transparency while he came out directly and verbally assured the members on the majority of issues we had. 
 

I have even less trust and faith in the people running the club than I did before however for the good of the upcoming season and with the assurances given last night I feel it’s more important to take the small victories rather than throw everything out with the bath water at such a late point. Hopefully if the people are added to the board with the right skillsets then we can see the improved governance talked about, and in terms of wanting people removed from the board or their positions it will hopefully be easier to put that in to place with some actual preparation time rather than being forced to make a decision with a gun to our heads that would hurt the club in the short term. 

[bob_the_builder]

So my thoughts on last night’s meeting are that, with regards to the deal, it was fairly positive and I’m now voting yes.  I was convinced by Brian Bonar who I thought came across very well and sincere.  I also believed him when he spoke of there being no ulterior motive to his investment and it’s an added comfort that his family are also behind the deal and are keeping a close eye on things.

This, though, leads me into the negatives.  Both boards and John Laird have clearly lost the trust of the fans.  Unfortunately, it is also clear is that Laird and Robinson are staying as a condition of the deal, and while I have no major gripes on this regarding Robinson, the same can’t be said about John Laird. He has been shown to have lied on 3 points within the FAQs (his club role, when he stopped being an agent and knowledge of his son’s football company) and allegedly he has lied directly to the MCT membership about being asked to stand down by the previous MCT board.  Graham McLennan’s visible anger at the meeting towards Lairds accounts of things has made me very nervous about his continued involvement with Morton.

On hindsight I wish I’d put the question to the board members, “If required, do you think John Laird would pass the fit and proper persons assessment to run a football club?” just to gauge their immediate reaction.  My gut tells me that the truthful answer would be no, and if that’s the case Morton need to be very careful they don’t fall foul on an SFA or SPFL laws.

Over the next 12 months we as MCT members need to watch these guys like hawks and I fully expect that MCT and GMFC start producing and issuing board meeting minutes so we can assess their performances.

[Greacen2000]

Overall a pretty frustrating meeting - a lot of the 1st hour was used up going down rabbit holes not directly related to the contents of the proposal.  I was unimpressed by what Laird & the directors had to say, but thought Bonar came across very well and his words went a long way towards reassuring me that nothing nefarious is going on (at least from the Dalrada side).

It was interesting that Bonar very quickly agreed that he would be prepared to maintain the same levels of contribution in future while allowing another shirt sponsor if it meant more income for the club.  This is a huge concession, and it’s a shame that those responsible for negotiating this deal didn’t think to ask this question back at the time.

Bonars willingness to allow the proposed agreement to be shared in full with no redactions was also refreshing and torpedoed the whole “commercially sensitive” line that was being pedalled.  His input was in stark contrast to the opaque & evasive comms we have seen from MCT in the past few weeks.  Make no mistake - if this deal is rejected & he walks away, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the MCT interim board for their failures to effectively communicate it with MCT members.  To that end, I hope that if (as I now believe to be the case) Bonar is acting in good faith, he won’t walk away in the event of the deal being rejected and will instead be willing to come back to the table.

For the most part I thought the rep from supporters direct did a good job of chairing the meeting, and it was definitely a good idea bringing him in.  At a couple of points the discussion was in danger of being derailed/getting lost in the weeds and he managed to get it back on track.  One failure was around giving time to answer questions from online attendees.  There should have been a clearly allotted cut off (eg 20 mins in room followed by 20 mins on line), and someone should have taken the action of collating questions from online attendees during the time that in-room questions were being answered.

At the moment I am starting to come round to accepting the deal on the proviso that there are cast iron measures to prevent share issue.  The composition of the board and positions of other club officials can be reviewed again in the future but for now securing funds is a more immediate concern.  

[CM48]

I filmed the whole thing last night and have posted it up on-line with a private link. I emailed Chris from the MCT team just after midnight to let him know. He replied before 6:30am this morning to say he'll need to check with MCT and GMFC boards regarding sharing the footage.

If it is shared I apologise for the audio being very uneven, but if you play with the volume as it goes along pretty much everything can be heard.

[gmfc_craig]

I thought last night's meeting was actually quite productive (eventually). As other said, Brian Bonar answered questions and eleviated many of the concerns held by members in 10 minutes than we had done in the room in the previous hour! Brian Bonar came across with humility and a touch of humour to be fair to him in what could have been a tense discussion. He clearly has a passion in the football club he supports, as we all do! 

I also like the challenge thrown down to MCT by Brian Bonar to do more to encourage membership (we can all play a part in that). It could be something as simple as members re-posting MCT adverts etc on socials, you just never what that could lead to, if it encourages 5 or 10 extra members signing up then it's a win! 

I have voted yes. Let's get Dougie his budget and let him do his thing and all the boardroom stuff will hopefully be sorted in due course. Once new directors are in place then hit the reset button and let's judge on their performance over the course of the season. 

I do not know John Laird personally but he certainly came across as one smug prick! He wanted to be anywhere else but there last night.

Stadium Director spoke well I thought and seems to have a clear handle on the Cowshed roof repairs. 

[Drew Busby's Moustache]

17 minutes ago, gmfc_craig said:

I thought last night's meeting was actually quite productive (eventually). As other said, Brian Bonar answered questions and eleviated many of the concerns held by members in 10 minutes than we had done in the room in the previous hour! Brian Bonar came across with humility and a touch of humour to be fair to him in what could have been a tense discussion. He clearly has a passion in the football club he supports, as we all do! 

I also like the challenge thrown down to MCT by Brian Bonar to do more to encourage membership (we can all play a part in that). It could be something as simple as members re-posting MCT adverts etc on socials, you just never what that could lead to, if it encourages 5 or 10 extra members signing up then it's a win! 

I have voted yes. Let's get Dougie his budget and let him do his thing and all the boardroom stuff will hopefully be sorted in due course. Once new directors are in place then hit the reset button and let's judge on their performance over the course of the season. 

I do not know John Laird personally but he certainly came across as one smug prick! He wanted to be anywhere else but there last night.

Stadium Director spoke well I thought and seems to have a clear handle on the Cowshed roof repairs. 

When are the repairs scheduled for?

[gmfc_craig]

4 minutes ago, Drew Busby's Moustache said:

When are the repairs scheduled for?

 

4 minutes ago, Drew Busby's Moustache said:

When are the repairs scheduled for?

Apparently waiting on insurance company to release funds but work scheduled to take around 4 weeks to complete. As a minimum half of the cowshed roof will be replaced and new drainage installed but was mentioned if they can squeeze more money from insurance company then other work will be carried out (what that will be, I don't know)

[Drew Busby's Moustache]

21 minutes ago, gmfc_craig said:

 

Apparently waiting on insurance company to release funds but work scheduled to take around 4 weeks to complete. As a minimum half of the cowshed roof will be replaced and new drainage installed but was mentioned if they can squeeze more money from insurance company then other work will be carried out (what that will be, I don't know)

Thanks for that.