Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation

[HamCam]

8 hours ago, TRVMP said:

The pool of those willing to invest their own money and doing so competently is also pretty small, though. There's no sign the Easdales are even slightly interested, and the Raes, despite two decades of trying, hit the limits of their ability and pockets.

Most people who invest money want an element of control. This is the challenge for MCT as the majority shareholder in the club. For whatever reason/s there has been a breakdown in relationship between Dalrada and MCT - the chances are both are at fault. Unless there is a whit knight out there with money to burn GMFC need Dalrada if we want to continue as a full-time club competing in the Championship.

As for the Easdales they have never hidden their club is Rangers - I am sure in the recent past Sandy increased his stake in the newco.

We are a mess just now and while I retain my reservations over fan ownership I just do not see any other show in town.

[Dirk Gently]

14 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

This. Free scran, chance to wear a suit and mingle with utter knobs with money.

Couldn't think of anything worse 

This repeated fallacy that people volunteer because they get to wear a tie and sit in the directors' box at games is about as far from the reality as it's possible to be. At the last MCT AGM it was noted just how much work and how many hours these volunteers put it, and how the football club couldn't function without them.  That's quite apart from the legal responsibilities of being a company director.

Also at the AGM, a complaint was made by a member that too many times not enough football club directors were attending matches and that the directors' box was often sparse or empty.  How does this pan out if this is such a wonderful perk for people?

[Mr.Blue]

40 minutes ago, Dirk Gently said:

This repeated fallacy that people volunteer because they get to wear a tie and sit in the directors' box at games is about as far from the reality as it's possible to be. At the last MCT AGM it was noted just how much work and how many hours these volunteers put it, and how the football club couldn't function without them.  That's quite apart from the legal responsibilities of being a company director.

Also at the AGM, a complaint was made by a member that too many times not enough football club directors were attending matches and that the directors' box was often sparse or empty.  How does this pan out if this is such a wonderful perk for people?

Freeloader found.

[irnbru]

6 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

 

 

6 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

This repeated fallacy that people volunteer because they get to wear a tie and sit in the directors' box at games is about as far from the reality as it's possible to be. At the last MCT AGM it was noted just how much work and how many hours these volunteers put it, and how the football club couldn't function without them.  That's quite apart from the legal responsibilities of being a company director.

Also at the AGM, a complaint was made by a member that too many times not enough football club directors were attending matches and that the directors' box was often sparse or empty.  How does this pan out if this is such a wonderful perk for people?

It's all too Animal Farm on the GMFC board now. 

Edited May 11 by irnbru

[dunning1874]

Whatever happens from here is clearly going to have long-term repercussions and take a while to play out off the park, but for the short-term we really need something concrete on the way ahead this week. Another week of silence from the club is only going to make things fester with more rumours growing in the vacuum, and at the very least they need to give Imrie his budget and let him get on with the job of building the squad.

[Mr Toon]

We have been told that the FIFA embargo is expected to be lifted on Thursday and one might reasonably hope that a club announcement would be forthcoming then.

[Chicken_Soup]

The club statement regarding the FIFA ban states that “This also does not impinge on our ability to renew contracts of players already at the club, whose contracts expire this summer.”

Our priority is securing contract extensions for at least some of those players, before we know who we may need to identify replacements for. So regardless of the ban being lifted this week, we’re really no further forward if the Dalrada uncertainty means we can’t offer these contract extensions.
 

I really hope the next updates we see are that a resolution to the boardroom situation has been reached. But with each passing day it’s more likely the next updates we see will be letting us know that some of our best players are joining our league rivals, again. 

[TONofmemories]

17 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

This repeated fallacy that people volunteer because they get to wear a tie and sit in the directors' box at games is about as far from the reality as it's possible to be. At the last MCT AGM it was noted just how much work and how many hours these volunteers put it, and how the football club couldn't function without them.  That's quite apart from the legal responsibilities of being a company director.

Also at the AGM, a complaint was made by a member that too many times not enough football club directors were attending matches and that the directors' box was often sparse or empty.  How does this pan out if this is such a wonderful perk for people?

There's volunteers then there's those on some ego trip.

[vikingTON]

22 hours ago, HamCam said:

Most people who invest money want an element of control. This is the challenge for MCT as the majority shareholder in the club. For whatever reason/s there has been a breakdown in relationship between Dalrada and MCT - the chances are both are at fault. Unless there is a whit knight out there with money to burn GMFC need Dalrada if we want to continue as a full-time club competing in the Championship.

As for the Easdales they have never hidden their club is Rangers - I am sure in the recent past Sandy increased his stake in the newco.

We are a mess just now and while I retain my reservations over fan ownership I just do not see any other show in town.

For investors to have a right to some control, they need to buy a shareholding stake. A sponsorship does not by itself confer the same right. If we wanted to consider the arguments made by a sponsor about the club board composition, then IMO that should require approval by the MCT membership. This has not been on the agenda though. 

About the final point (and the wider discussion too), there's nothing to say that MCT's shareholding must stay at 90% of the club. There was a previous approach from an undisclosed party to invest in GMFC - but as soon as the membership pushed back with even the slightest conditions for transparency, sucj interest vanished without trace. Which leads me to conclude that we were well rid. 

I'd view a partnership in which MCT has around 50-50 of the club shares alongside private investors (on the board too) as the best of both worlds. But the investors need to be serious about respecting both the ownership rights and the ongoing capital investment that MCT delivers to the club (i.e. recognising share buyback rights or part-ownership of any new infrastructure developed). It is not a stupid wee charity case that private investors get to ignore whenever they feel like it. 

[irnbru]

2 hours ago, vikingTON said:

For investors to have a right to some control, they need to buy a shareholding stake. A sponsorship does not by itself confer the same right. If we wanted to consider the arguments made by a sponsor about the club board composition, then IMO that should require approval by the MCT membership. This has not been on the agenda though. 

Agreed on this. They have someone on the board, naming rights on the stadium, a part of the stand named after a relative and their name on our strips so it's not like they aren't getting anything from the deal either. 

I appreciate they are paying a lot more than we've had in the past but it doesn't mean they should get to dictate how the club is run (or MCT who they don't have a direct relationship with but are the majority shareholder). 

[vikingTON]

For this specific issue, I wonder why both sides can't actually agree to have their cake and eat it;

• Let those who Dalrada apparently want on the GMFC board to remain. 

• SO LONG AS GMFC's articles are amended to allow the addition of legit MCT delegates on the board - up to the 50% as was intended. 

• Clarify the responsibilities of MCT delegates to the GMFC board - as an internal issue for MCT, with no scope for anyone else sticking their oar in.

There would still of course be some tensions and noses out of joint, but  expanding the GMFC board is a pragmatic alternative to this War of the Roses style stand-off (apparent to the outside at least), at a critical time in the club's future planning. 

[dunning1874]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

For this specific issue, I wonder why both sides can't actually agree to have their cake and eat it;

• Let those who Dalrada apparently want on the GMFC board to remain. 

• SO LONG AS GMFC's articles are amended to allow the addition of legit MCT delegates on the board - up to the 50% as was intended. 

• Clarify the responsibilities of MCT delegates to the GMFC board - as an internal issue for MCT, with no scope for anyone else sticking their oar in.

There would still of course be some tensions and noses out of joint, but  expanding the GMFC board is a pragmatic alternative to this War of the Roses style stand-off (apparent to the outside at least), at a critical time in the club's future planning. 

Yeah, if Dalrada really want one (or more) specific current MCT rep to be a director as their representative then that's fine, but they shouldn't be there as an MCT rep - indeed the opening ITK post of this thread said Sam Robinson was intending to resign as an MCT rep but remain on the board for precisely that reason - and if that is alongside rather than instead of Dalrada's existing representative then MCT's seats should be increased to ensure the majority shareholder remains in control. I fail to see what objection Dalrada could have to that, unless their actual aim is defacto control of the club through ostensible MCT reps being Dalrada reps in practice.

[TONofmemories]

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/25155405.morton-face-700-000-hole-mct-given-deadline-dalrada/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKO_yFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHu3Ujg6I1yrdurasNivLMTAydpgmGF6sD3NE9IOB-ObbkSP8gQrYAibs-lqh_aem_7pjvGBMxr4ijx-mi7VgC-Q

[Cet Homme Charmant]

54 minutes ago, TONofmemories said:

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/25155405.morton-face-700-000-hole-mct-given-deadline-dalrada/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKO_yFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHu3Ujg6I1yrdurasNivLMTAydpgmGF6sD3NE9IOB-ObbkSP8gQrYAibs-lqh_aem_7pjvGBMxr4ijx-mi7VgC-Q

If the GMFC and MCT Boards fuck this up because of ego and/or personal resentments and vendettas, both need to be hounded

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

If the GMFC and MCT Boards fuck this up because of ego and/or personal resentments and vendettas, both need to be hounded

Really? You're just buying that obvious spin and brinkmanship *so* easily? 

It would be interesting to see Dalrada's view on having a 48 hour, make or break deadline for not furnishing payments on time because reasons. Just curious. 

[TopCat]

Theoretical scenario: you're in contract with an large organisation going through a big dip in performance and a restructuring. They're struggling to pay you on time (or at all), creating negative consequences and conflict in your organisation.

Would you be wary of signing up to a new, bigger contract with them without seeing marked improvement?  Especially if they were trying to publicly pressure you into signing in an arbitrary timeframe "in good faith"? 

[IanClinging]

2 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/25155405.morton-face-700-000-hole-mct-given-deadline-dalrada/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKO_yFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHu3Ujg6I1yrdurasNivLMTAydpgmGF6sD3NE9IOB-ObbkSP8gQrYAibs-lqh_aem_7pjvGBMxr4ijx-mi7VgC-Q

Can somebody post the text of this story, so I don't need to subscribe to The Tele?

[Cet Homme Charmant]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

Really? You're just buying that obvious spin and brinkmanship *so* easily? 

Yeah I know, it could of course just be brinkmanship, and it's entirely possible they've just given them a 'deadline' to force their hand. But that's a dangerous assumption to make and I wouldn't want to put it to the test by fannying about and letting it expire without any sort of reaction. So aye, I would buy it just in case they are serious.

I'm not entirely comfortable either with the amount of power and influence they have either, but rightly or wrongly, they could argue they're bought that right. 

[The Bewilderedbeast]

19 minutes ago, IanClinging said:

Can somebody post the text of this story, so I don't need to subscribe to The Tele?

Use

 

Smry.ai

[GiGi]

49 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Yeah I know, it could of course just be brinkmanship, and it's entirely possible they've just given them a 'deadline' to force their hand. But that's a dangerous assumption to make and I wouldn't want to put it to the test by fannying about and letting it expire without any sort of reaction. So aye, I would buy it just in case they are serious.

I'm not entirely comfortable either with the amount of power and influence they have either, but rightly or wrongly, they could argue they're bought that right. 

No, they can buy shares for that right. If they're on good footing then I'm sure MCT would listen to offers to buy up some of their stake in the club.