Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation

[SassenachTon]

I’d like to know why Dalrada want those specific individuals on the board. Why them, exactly?

[cmontheton]

20 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

If it is the case that the GMFC board was aware on 17 March that a transfer embargo was in place and the MCT board were kept in the dark by their own representatives on the GMFC board on that, only finding out along with the rest of the support on 1 May, then it's impossible to see how they couldn't ask for the resignation of those representatives. If that's the case they are not representing MCT on the board and can't remain on it in that capacity.

Meanwhile, the MCT statement says :  However the board of MCT believes that it was important to attempt to resolve the situation in an appropriate fashion privately before then updating everyone fully and moving forward.    How come MCT doesn't have the same responsibility to communicate to its members that they are using as a reason to get rid of people from the football club board here?

[Hej]

16 minutes ago, cmontheton said:

I see where you're making your mistake.

What's the point in shit-stirring like this? How does this improve the situation in anyway? You're putting the club at risk to get a wee dig in, in favour of your faction? Grow up.

I'm not a member of MCT, so I don't have any biases here, but at least they've got a fairly clear and concise statement out with fair reasoning behind their stance. Again, IF true.

 

Delete your post and stop with the shit-stirring. Not doing your sides cause any favours here.

Edited May 7 by Hej

[TONofmemories]

Someone with a legal background ought to be doing some free work here. It's surely not legal that you dangle a carrot of money, whilst completely ignoring that members of the MCT board are voted democratically? 

Perhaps explains the silence..

[cmontheton]

3 minutes ago, SassenachTon said:

I’d like to know why Dalrada want those specific individuals on the board. Why them, exactly?

 

I agree.  That's very hard to believe.

It's perfectly plausible that they have a direct relationship with the Chairman and have confidence in him as steward of the money they're handing over, especially as by all accounts he's recently flown to California to ensure the money is in place for next season.  But it's hardly credible that they'd insist on two other far less significant board members being retained.

 

[irnbru]

12 minutes ago, SassenachTon said:

I’d like to know why Dalrada want those specific individuals on the board. Why them, exactly?

I think Sam Robinson brought in the investment. The initial post here, if correct, says they want him as their rep since Ross Gourdie doesn't spend time in Scotland. I don't think they should have two reps but it does make sense they'd be annoyed about that. Laird, I'm guessing, they just like as the chairman and have a good working relationship with him. 

Barr I'm not so sure about - assume it's just that he's caught up in it all. 

Edited May 7 by irnbru

[cmontheton]

1 minute ago, Hej said:

What's the point in shit-stirring like this? How does this improve the situation in anyway? You're putting the club at risk to get a wee dig in, in favour of your faction? Grow up.

I'm not a member of MCT, so I don't have any biases here, but at least they've got a fairly clear and concise statement out with fair reasoning behind them. Again, IF true.

 

Delete your post and stop with the shit-stirring. Not doing your sides cause any favours here.

I have no faction in this, and the risk to the club is already there.

But I'm afraid you've answered your own question when you correctly say "IF true"

[JWC]

7 minutes ago, irnbru said:

I think Sam Robinson brought in the investment. The initial post here, if correct, would seem they want him as their rep since Ross Gourdie doesn't spend time in Scotland. I don't think they should have two reps but it does make sense they'd be annoyed about that. Barr I'm not so sure about - assume it's just that he's caught up in it all. 

Robinson getting the investment was great at the time . You don’t get a pass for life surely 

Edited May 7 by JWC

[irnbru]

Just now, JWC said:

Robinson getting the investment was laughed at the time . You don’t get a pass for life surely 

Nah, don't really agree with it but think that would be the reason. 

And, probably importantly, if we're aware of these relationships then MCT should have been and maybe took another approach to avoid the risk of losing the money. 

[dunning1874]

9 minutes ago, cmontheton said:

Meanwhile, the MCT statement says :  However the board of MCT believes that it was important to attempt to resolve the situation in an appropriate fashion privately before then updating everyone fully and moving forward.    How come MCT doesn't have the same responsibility to communicate to its members that they are using as a reason to get rid of people from the football club board here?

I literally criticised MCT's failure to communicate with their members sooner in the following paragraph, but in any case there's a significant difference between taking around 48 hours to make a statement (48 hours in which the situation has clearly been developing further after they asked for the resignation, with communication with Dalrada where they've apparently stated they don't want those board members removed) and six weeks of silence on the embargo, a silence that was only broken because the news got out without the club releasing it themselves and they were forced to make a statement.

[Hej]

13 minutes ago, cmontheton said:

I have no faction in this, and the risk to the club is already there.

But I'm afraid you've answered your own question when you correctly say "IF true"

Sure you don't, shitebag.

 

@Admin can I suggest these new accounts that have been signed up shit-stir, on either side, get the ban hammer?

Edited May 7 by Hej

[CM48]

Just re-read that initial piece of propaganda that started this thread which I counted as containing

7 "allegedly"s - 2 of which referred to the MCT board members leaving (any statements yet?)

3 "reportedly"s

and 1 "apparently" a "most likely" and a "by all accounts"

Not sure what that says about the author and their source, but none of those words or phrases were in the MCT email so I know who I'm more likely to side with through a simple choice of language.

You're anonymous on here, and it's not a court of law, so why all the suggestive prefixes?

I didn't read anything in that post either about what the dismissed board members have brought to the club, other than Dalrada wanting Robinson, Gourdie and Laird to be there.

If Dalrada truly mean their recent public statement about being "Proud to stand" with the club then they would have to be in favour of that club's owners holding people who were withholding information regarding things like FIFA embargoes to account?

And I think maybe us as fans should be asking Dalrada their opinion on it all, also publicly? 

Surely trying to run things properly and transparently (eventually) is no reason to pull funding?

[TRVMP]

2 hours ago, CM48 said:

Just re-read that initial piece of propaganda that started this thread which I counted as containing

7 "allegedly"s - 2 of which referred to the MCT board members leaving (any statements yet?)

3 "reportedly"s

and 1 "apparently" a "most likely" and a "by all accounts"

Not sure what that says about the author and their source, but none of those words or phrases were in the MCT email so I know who I'm more likely to side with through a simple choice of language.

You're anonymous on here, and it's not a court of law, so why all the suggestive prefixes?

I didn't read anything in that post either about what the dismissed board members have brought to the club, other than Dalrada wanting Robinson, Gourdie and Laird to be there.

If Dalrada truly mean their recent public statement about being "Proud to stand" with the club then they would have to be in favour of that club's owners holding people who were withholding information regarding things like FIFA embargoes to account?

And I think maybe us as fans should be asking Dalrada their opinion on it all, also publicly? 

Surely trying to run things properly and transparently (eventually) is no reason to pull funding?

I think the hounding of Dalrada is massively premature. We don't know what the terms of their agreement are and we don't know what demands, if any, they have made. Their only public statements so far have been 100% positive.

IF it turns out that they're trying to hold the majority shareholder to ransom then obviously that's a problem but right now we've only heard, officially, from one side. The implication from that side is that they're trying to resolve it, trying to find a middle ground. I believe that Dalrada deserve the chance to demonstrate a similar commitment before they're written off, and that includes their stance - whatever it might be - on board members etc.

Frankly speaking though, they're a sponsor. They're not corporate stewards of the club. I don't think they owe a statement. I do think, however, that the GMFC Board owes a statement at this point. The embargo was already a sign that standards were slipping, and this is even more grave than that. They need to clarify the communication lines with the major shareholder of the club - namely, us fans (those of us who are paid up MCT members at least) - and explain why the embargo was swept under the carpet.

I want fan ownership to succeed and I want each member of the board to succeed. I don't think there needs to be a statement every time someone coughs at Cappielow. I don't think we need to air dirty laundry in public all the time. But this current situation needs far more clarity than it has, and for me that's down to the GMFC board failing to remember its duty to its major shareholder.

[TopCat]

3 hours ago, TRVMP said:

I think the hounding of Dalrada is massively premature. We don't know what the terms of their agreement are and we don't know what demands, if any, they have made. Their only public statements so far have been 100% positive.

IF it turns out that they're trying to hold the majority shareholder to ransom then obviously that's a problem but right now we've only heard, officially, from one side. The implication from that side is that they're trying to resolve it, trying to find a middle ground. I believe that Dalrada deserve the chance to demonstrate a similar commitment before they're written off, and that includes their stance - whatever it might be - on board members etc.

Frankly speaking though, they're a sponsor. They're not corporate stewards of the club. I don't think they owe a statement. I do think, however, that the GMFC Board owes a statement at this point. The embargo was already a sign that standards were slipping, and this is even more grave than that. They need to clarify the communication lines with the major shareholder of the club - namely, us fans (those of us who are paid up MCT members at least) - and explain why the embargo was swept under the carpet.

I want fan ownership to succeed and I want each member of the board to succeed. I don't think there needs to be a statement every time someone coughs at Cappielow. I don't think we need to air dirty laundry in public all the time. But this current situation needs far more clarity than it has, and for me that's down to the GMFC board failing to remember its duty to its major shareholder.

Completely agreed on all of this, but I'd add that it's now hard to see how any compromise deal can include the 3 people involved remaining in post. If their positions are only held going forward due to the influence of a 3rd party and not MCT, this would create the perception of (if not a potential/actual) conflict of interest. That perception would be damaging in and of itself. 

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, irnbru said:

Nah, don't really agree with it but think that would be the reason. 

And, probably importantly, if we're aware of these relationships then MCT should have been and maybe took another approach to avoid the risk of losing the money. 

What would that 'other approach' be exactly?

There should be further clarification from those involved, but the perceived breakdown between the activity of MCT reps on the club board and the actual ownership body is hardly a new one. It was being raised in a typical cloak and dagger fashion at the last MCT AGM for example, possibly further back as well. 

Edited May 8 by vikingTON

[SassenachTon]

I also agree that hounding Dalrada is completely unfair. They’ve pumped a shiteload of money into Morton, and I can’t think how they could possibly have been any more supportive. We’re very lucky to have them. And if one of their sponsorship conditions is that the board has to include people who they know, and who they can trust to ensure proper stewardship of their money - then I’m 100% fine with that. I just look upon it as a T&C of the sponsorship agreement- not as some kind of subversive powergrab big stick. Bear in mind also that Ross has a board and a pile of shareholders to answer to. He has to justify why he’s sending pots of Dalrada money to a fitba club in Greenock - and I’m guessing that as part of that justification, full disclosure has to be provided relating to how corporate funds are being secured, managed, distributed and spent. The best way to do that is to utilise known and trusted individuals who are in-situ all of the time.

Edited May 8 by SassenachTon

[irnbru]

9 minutes ago, SassenachTon said:

I also agree that hounding Dalrada is completely unfair. They’ve pumped a shiteload of money into Morton, and I can’t think how they could possibly have been any more supportive. We’re very lucky to have them. And if one of their sponsorship conditions is that the board has to include people who they know, and who they can trust to ensure proper stewardship of their money - then I’m 100% fine with that. I just look upon it as a T&C of the sponsorship agreement- not as some kind of subversive powergrab big stick. Bear in mind also that Ross has a board and a pile of shareholders to answer to. He has to justify why he’s sending pots of Dalrada money to a fitba club in Greenock - and I’m guessing that as part of that justification, full disclosure has to be provided relating to how corporate funds are being secured, managed, distributed and spent. The best way to do that is to utilise known and trusted individuals who are in-situ all of the time.

 

9 minutes ago, SassenachTon said:

I also agree that hounding Dalrada is completely unfair. They’ve pumped a shiteload of money into Morton, and I can’t think how they could possibly have been any more supportive. We’re very lucky to have them. And if one of their sponsorship conditions is that the board has to include people who they know, and who they can trust to ensure proper stewardship of their money - then I’m 100% fine with that. I just look upon it as a T&C of the sponsorship agreement- not as some kind of subversive powergrab big stick. Bear in mind also that Ross has a board and a pile of shareholders to answer to. He has to justify why he’s sending pots of Dalrada money to a fitba club in Greenock - and I’m guessing that as part of that justification, full disclosure has to be provided relating to how corporate funds are being secured, managed, distributed and spent. The best way to do that is to utilise known and trusted individuals who are in-situ all of the time.

And what is the main shareholder and fans group don't trust them? 

[irnbru]

2 hours ago, vikingTON said:

What would that 'other approach' be exactly?

There should be further clarification from those involved, but the perceived breakdown between the activity of MCT reps on the club board and the actual ownership body is hardly a new one. It was being raised in a typical cloak and dagger fashion at the last MCT AGM for example, possibly further back as well. 

I'd have hope there would have been something a bit less confrontational. That said, the statement does say they were asked to step down (rather than told they were leaving) so it could have been a case of them saying we're not getting answers and we're now aware of a couple of things we should have know and discussions about whether they should still be on the board.

I'd have hoped it was approached sensitively but not sure that was the case given the first post here. Although, the lack of updates from MCT might have been try to let them leave without all this going on. 

All just guesswork though and probably contradicting myself just thinking about it! 

[SassenachTon]

10 minutes ago, irnbru said:

 

And what is the main shareholder and fans group don't trust them? 

Then MCT have a simple choice to make. Either insert board members who they do trust (and who the sponsor also trusts) - or tell Dalrada that their boatloads of cash are no longer welcome, whilst scrambling around desperately trying to replace that money from somewhere else. 

[GiGi]

Since we're yet to find out if any of the Dalrada stuff is actually true and before biting the hand, I'd like to know if Dalrada were late on payments this year before letting them hold the club to ransom for board representation. Another potentially malicious rumour that made its way around when their share price tanked. 

If they're on good financial footing, and if the figures being stated in the Tele that they have and will continue to give Morton are remotely true, then I think they could realistically purchase a minority shareholding to justify having more people in directorship.