Leaderboard

Has it... where is the alternative investment then? EFG remains the only offer in the room: for a stake of a club with zero assets in capital or players, a Championship status that is depreciating in real value by the week, and a manager who frankly is a net liability on the books as a result of that. All of which would have been salvageable - had the club's officeholders not created an enormous black hole in the operating budget due to too many late night phone calls with their big mate 'Brian'. Despite what GMFC seems to think, having 1000 subscribers still investing £150k per year in capital per year is a pretty big ask, given the zoo behind the scenes. A virtual charity bucket is not an investment model. This constant, Wars of the Roses style saga of leadership is distracting from the reality that a football club that requires more than its existing £150k per year does not have a credible business model to invest in. It's well past time that officeholders stopped clinging on to full-time Championship status, and have the club cut its cloth to where it fits.

Someone has made the point on a fans group that if the new directors wanted to oust the existing board as their first act, they should have explicitly written this intent in their personal statements before standing for election, and not going about it in the underhanded way that they did.

I was going to wait until more information hopefully came out and we got all sides of the story before sending an email, however there is not a world where I want Graham McLennan (and by proxy McMaster and Anderson whether fair or not) on the MCT board. We’ve just escaped underhand tactics, board politics and certain board members being the saviour that investors request lead on their behalf with Dalrada and it’s crazy to me that we’ve walked straight back in to that. My email requesting a vote of no confidence in the three of them has been sent.

Likewise. I suspect it will need to be 100+. Hopefully it will end the Estrella nonsense. I know we're in dire straits and need investment but I'm not being forced to accept a deal from them because they're the only show in town. What the last few weeks have shown is there is enough of fanbase to galvanise and encourage alternative investment.

Agree. Apathy and not taking action won't do. Can't sit and grumble when a one liner email is all you need.

I’ve also now sent my email. I’d encourage others who agree to do the same as soon as possible.

Also you use the phrase prematurely leaked, but a finalised agreement had been made as of 31 July then negotiations were reopened after the AGM was called and a date set for the vote to open, which all sides agree was done at Estrella's behest. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Estrella feeling it was necessary to do so in light of the change in the club's financial position, that's why there wasn't a finalised agreement to share. The email containing the agreement as it stood was sent only 2 days before the AGM, with a later email saying agreement had been reached on the outstanding clauses coming less than 2 hours before it started. If the email with the IA as it stood is what Estrella are arguing has been a breach of the NDA by MCT and so is a basis for legal action, would it have been appropriate to wait another two days to share it? How would any MCT members have had a chance to properly scrutinise it and discuss it at the AGM if that was the case and we all only had an hour and 45 minutes to read and understand a 30 page (discounting the 20 odd pages that just listed existing shareholders) legal document? For that matter, if the MCT board sharing the IA with the MCT membership was a breach of the NDA and Estrella have cause for legal redress as a result, was briefing individual MCT members about the progress of negotiations not itself a breach of the NDA as well then, before even getting to the content of the statement? You can of course argue that they shouldn't have shared the legal advice regarding the veto and argument of majority control along with the agreement and instead kept that back for the meeting or otherwise communicated it separately, but I'd also say not sharing the legal advice the MCT board received from their lawyers with the membership whenever there's something beyond 'all good, nothing to see here' about the deal with members would itself have been an unacceptable lack of transparency. We've had contradictory statements of fact made about the course of events by all sides here, with all claiming they have a paper trail as evidence to support their version of events. None of that evidence has been shared with the membership to allow a concrete "this person is indisputably lying about this and this person is indisputably telling the truth" conclusion with evidence backing it up to be known among the membership. We now find that one of the parties is threatening the other with legal action over breaking non-disclosure agreements. You can interpret that many ways: one side did fuck up and the other side therefore has a right to take legal action against the other knowing they'd win, both sides or neither breached the agreement and a legal threat is a bluff, or in the same scenario a legal threat is not a bluff but they'd lose. Maybe a majority of the MCT board feel they're bang to rights and have no choice but to avert legal action because they'd lose, maybe a majority simply think it's the right thing to do because they want the Estrella deal back on track regardless, or maybe a majority don't think they're in the wrong but legal action isn't a risk worth taking because it would be more time and money diverted away from saving the club. Whatever the case may be, a cynic could certainly conclude though that threatening legal action over the NDA is ensuring that those paper trails which provide evidence of who was telling the truth at the AGM will never see the light of day.

I've sent in mine as well, FWIW.

My instinct is that's a tacit acknowledgement that there was some kind of procedural issue with the meeting/build up to it and that, legally speaking, EFG could have our pants down if they sued over it

Morton on a pole match at Cappielow for control of the club.

Would this be 'the MCT' who were against the deal last month, or the other MCT who are pushing it forward now? We'll be needing separate spokespersons for the Real, Provisional and Continuity MCTs at this rate.

According to MCT articles, it requires the following - 10% would mean approx 100 members need to make the proposal. I would urge anyone who agrees with me to do the following - Email sent to MCT now to communications@mortonclubtogether.co.uk In accordance with article 16(d) I hereby propose that votes take place to remove George Anderson, Graham McLennan & John McMaster from the MCT board. Regards, Sean Fitzharris