Leaderboard

"An incomplete Investment Agreement was issued to MCT members without Estrella's knowledge or consent, contrary to the arrangements that had been agreed and in breach of the NDA governing the process. In addition, the proposal was communicated by MCT as giving Estrella "majority control over GMFC whilst being a minority shareholder". Estrella did not see these communications until 18 August." Later in the statement... "Our decision to speak publicly at that stage was driven by the circumstances immediately preceding the AGM. Incorrect information about the nature of our proposal had been communicated to MCT members" The AGM was held on 17 August. How could the statement at the AGM be a response to the narrative created by an email on 15 August if Estrella didn't see that email until 18 August?

Again there's evidence of discussions happening with MCT members separate from the board. Given the mewling about breach of NDAs, were these members subject to the same NDA to allow them to be party to negotiations and declared as such to the MCT board? If not, they're guilty of most of their accusations.

When you've got Bible John speaking sense, that's when you know it's TTG

I see your point but disagree - to expect unanimity on a proposal from board members is unrealistic (and ultimately involves a majority bending the will of the minority). While raising its own issues, I would favour either 1) an officially neutral position (if you have agreed terms on a proposal - that doesn't necessarily have to happen) or 2) a transparent demonstration of who supports and who wouldn't support the proposal. As for detailed scrutiny - unless MCT is (and is able to) disclose direct legal advice, NOT the board's interpretation of that advice, then deferring detailed scrutiny to the board is an accident waiting to happen. The membership do not all have time or expertise to scrutinise a detailed legal document - but enough do, and with enough different views and skillsets that an open and informed debate can occur. For example - the legality of the proposed share issues was raised and discussed at the AGM. The bigger threat is to have any variant of MCT board manipulate scrutiny towards a proposal that they want to pass. What is completely unacceptable either way is for individual board members to issue statements in MCT's name, either on their own steam or in partnership with an external group, or unofficial statements that can quite clearly be interpreted as a similar intervention. MCT board members will disagree and should disagree about different choices that must be taken: there are ways of doing it that are credible, and ways that turn the organisation into a zoo.

Here's the issue: MOH has been by far our most dangerous player in this game. But he is (and pretty much always has been at the club) nowhere near a goalscoring position. It is a screamingly obvious waste to put that skill, athleticism and know-how to beat players out wide because 'gubbins wingers R gud'. MOH should be playing in a front two, roasting a centre back and so getting a clear shot at goal. This worse than useless, CV-padding, monumental fraud of a manager can talk about how easy in the eye his team is all he wants: it has absolutely nothing of substance in either penalty box. That's how the game works. He should have been on gardening leave since the EF game, with any combination of Gillespie, MOH or my left bollock with a smiley face on it running the team instead.

Some of my favourite gaffes from this one: - They admit to holding “discussions with several MCT members and subsequently with the MCT Board” in the week leading up to the members meeting. This repeats Alistair Renfrew’s claim on the podcast that he was briefed by Estrella, which constitutes a breach of the NDA in the very way they accuse the MCT board of doing. - They confirm that they are not currently in discussions with MCT, which contradicts the bizarre claims sent out in the MCT communication this week, presumed to be from McLennan. He now has to confirm if this claim was indeed a lie and, if it has come from him, resign immediately. I’d also like him to provide - if he is indeed the author of the leaked message - detailed evidence of Estrella’s legal challenge against us, which has not yet been mentioned by them or anyone else. - They claim that our downturn in results was a major reason for their revised investment offer and withdrawal, and that they initially believed they were investing in a stable championship club. This contradicts the fact that their initial proposal acknowledged the possibility we could be a league one club by the time their investment was made, and that this would be something they were comfortable with. Under the initial proposal, in this circumstance they would have gained 2.5%(?) in shares. - The contradiction in the various claims that a) club finances were far worse than they imagined, b) the squad was worse than expected, c) the club signed players without their approval and d) the club refused to invest in the squad to their satisfaction - is laughable.

Quite.

Disagreement at board level is not only normal, it's essential. But the way these disagreements are leaked and become personal vendettas is totally unprofessional and unethical I`m now wondering if there are enough people in MCT who are qualified to take up these positions. Too many egos and not enough governance experience is the way it looks to me, from the outside

A few people, I think, got taken in by the idea of being the right hand man of a global club ownership conglomerate, and they're now left hanging out to dry as a result. Hope it was worth it, guys.

how much is in the fighting fund - 80 grand or so? I propose we put the whole thing on a 'Robbie Muirhead anytime goalscorer' bet and double our money. There's no surer thing

Agreed. But in a non-dysfunctional board disagreements are discussed and voted on and (as you say) kept internal. When that happens the losers either resign if they feel strongly enough or suck it up and accept that their view is not the majority. They don't form secret little cliques, send underhand notes, and try to get those who don't agree with their way of doing things kicked off the board.

They've absolutely chucked their erstwhile top cheerleader under the bus. Nice guys! Surely his position on the MCT board is now completely untenable. He must stand down now, along with his hingers-on

Looks the person responsible for that email (again all the others are signed by a comms director) has overplayed their hand.

Also pretty depressing that the half time interview was still talking about the main sponsors 'financial challenges' and Tam Cowan. Is the club actually trying to increase review outwith just having a begging bowl out or trying to be a bit more creative in ways to reduce spending? It just feels like we're run as a charity or social club. Any investment is going to want a significant amount of control over the club - it's the only way anything will change so, in that respect, Estralla are right that there needs to be contractual ways of protecting their money (and success by association).

2 is what we've been doing since the Bosman rule through to MCT and it works as long as, and only for as long as, the checks clear at the bank. 3 is what we did for the last few years. We got off to a great start in no small measure due to favorable cup draws (and Dougie's steering us through the early rounds often enough.) Again, it works as long as the checks clear. When they don't clear, we're in an absolutely grave position. Short of selling the club completely, and to whom that would be I don't know, 1 is the only option that gives us a chance at long-term survival, although that depends in huge part on the future of the ground, which grows more precarious each year. I think with the amount of money currently on offer in Scottish football, thinking that we'd be anywhere near the Championship on a break-even MCT model is very ambitious. We'd do well to get the League One playoffs most years. And I think that outcome is absolutely fine if the alternative is what's happening now.

In what bizarre universe do you believe that; "it's local business owners who want to help put money into the club to keep us going." is in any way part of a viable route forward? Let's be quite clear - GMFC was on its uppers long before the Raes finally shuffled out the door. It was open to such a local consortium for years prior to and during the transition to MCR ownership. Where were these high-minded individuals back in the winter of 2020-21, when the club was at the brink through short term factors outwith it's control (though a long-term comeuppance well deserved)? And the door has been left wide open for any offers to invest in exchange for a stake in the club ever since - with one mystery approach, that withdrew after the slightest pushback, then Dalrada's semi-detached role, then EFG. So this disinterested benefactor idea is sheer fantasy - they could have jumped on board under Imrie when the first team had the potential to go places. Only Dalrada did so and it hasn't worked out to our advantage. Benefactor dependence is as cheap and lazy an attempt at ducking the reality and necessary hard choices now, as passing round a virtual charity bucket. They don't. This was explained at the AGM.

Should have the thread renamed to this right now tbh. A 'professional', 'full-time', 'football manager' cannot see any issues here whatsoever though. Into the fucking sea.

TTG, Murray.

The decent thing to do would be a commitment from everyone to wind their collective neck in and fulfil their current commitments in the interim until replacement board members can be identified and voted into post, at which time the incumbents will stand down. Perhaps a statement recognising emails requesting a vote for their removal but offering to stand down to save time and in recognition of their mishandling of matters?

The club board in particular seem to have that lack of self awareness. There's been poor decision after poor decision with the odd we'll learn from our mistakes (they never do) but the majority of times you hear from them you'd think they are doing brilliantly. Obviously not expecting anyone to say I've made a mess of this but it's generally pretty tone deaf. Was all a bit too buzz wordy and business speak to actually mean anything but at least guys like Dale talked about strategy, performance indicators, plans etc - there's nothing of the sort these days.

Somebody’s tellin’ stories

They are Charlatans.

Also on this point, I didn't really read the agreement as 'minority stake and majority control' and seen it as a veto at the time and it could have been made to work if there was a good working relationship. Given that they are threatening legal action this early though then the risk of them throwing their toys out the pram on a regular basis if they don't agree with decisions becomes a lot higher. There could be a deadlock mechanism inserted but I'm now at the stage where I'm 99% sure that nothing they could say now will convince me they are right. This is coming from a position of agreeing with them that the agreement was rushed out & MCT/ GMFC didn't come across particularly well with the whole thing, thinking their concept sounded good and that whole really OTT, the read out on the night did have some good points hidden amongst the mud slinging. For me the deal was maybe salvageable, but the behaviours shown in that mail make me not want them near us.

There's a major issue in that the MCT board has to operate and present one voice to members and fans. This is clearly not happening and major decisions like the Estrella deal are attempting to be decided in EGMs as a live issue with board members clearly having opposing views or varying levels of enthusiasm for the proposal. Members have to have trust in the board to make proposals that are considered, viable and in the best interest of the club. I believe the MCT board should attempt to find consensus on issues before they are proposed and present collective responsibility to members. There are over 1,000 members and even the most engaged of us will not read detailed proposals, never mind legal documents. Until MCT operates like this, it will struggle to provide confidence and assurance. If board members state their case at board meetings and are unable to convince fellow board members of their viewpoint in private, I believe they should be prepared to drop the issue publicly, or step aside. Fan ownership will just not work otherwise.

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.

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.

It's not as clear-cut as that though, because despite the continuous neglect of GMFC to recognise this fact, MCT actually invests £150k of capital each and every year. That is not a gift - that capital is just as real as any dreamboat consortium or investor would be expected to offer, just to 'achieve' this level of utter incompetence. We choose to fritter it away on Ian Murray's fever-dream 10th central midfielder and yet another winger: we don't have to though. So there is scope for some differentiation here. If an external party (for whatever reason or background) wants a hands-on running of GMFC, like Douglas Rae clearly fancied years before the crisis hit and he finally stepped in, then MCT could shift some of its capital to invest in facilities - at or surrounding Cappielow - that are of benefit to the club but not owned by the club. The problem is that 'benefactors' (see Dalrada) as well as GMFC think that they have a divine right to MCT capital going towards their ambishun first team project. And with every ridiculous internal leadership struggle at MCT, we are frittering away the opportunity to ever turn that hefty amount of capital into tangible assets. This is why for me the EFG outcome is frustrating. There were absolutely, significant issues with the proposal - and I would need to have seen the mystery article before even considering voting in favour - but it offered the possibility of firmly separating the task of running a professional football club from the complementary roles that MCT could offer. I don't see a dreamboat alternative offer emerging, with GMFC now being fundamentally insolvent and a de facto seaside league outfit to join Queen of the South (£150k annual losses, in the third tier). Instead we are left promoting from within and the whole setup being a pitiful joke. That's what this once-proud club is attracting right now from Scottish football - pity - and that cannot continue. Which fan owned clubs, specifically, are even remotely analogous to our situation? How does the 'model' operate, exactly? But yeah so long as you're only speculating about your dreamboat benefactor scenario based on newspaper fluff, then that's in no way detached from the reality of this football club's predicament. The same approach that had certain folk claiming that EFG would surely return with a better offer after the AGM. Because that's how negotiations work apparently, except no they didn't. I've heard it's actually Elon Musk slapping down readies for a 50% stake, in order to launch all SpaceX craft from behind the WDE. It's only speculation though so don't @ me!

It drives me mad how utterly ineffective we are. Some nice passages of play mean nothing when we’re crap at all the most important things that lead to winning a football match. This sense of hopelessness is quite an unusual feeling. I’d usually be optimistic enough to hope that we could sack the manager and everything would magically change, but I just don’t see him going or us emptying him.

Teams pick and choose their moments against us. It's the same story every week - so easy to play against and score when we're vulnerable. Sit in, be narrow and catch us on the break or crowd the edge of the box and win second balls. It's the kind of stuff Sunday league managers can pick up and and play against so why we've persevering with it is anyone's guess. Murray surely isn't that stupid to think that keeping doing the same thing will somehow improve things. If we can't get rid of him can we ditch the assistant and bring someone in that will challenge him? The players aren't that bad. Certainly not bad enough for a winless streak like this so it can only come down to the manager.

I know what you mean but at the same time they hit the inside of the post twice and had another goal disallowed (they also had other really clear chances). The problem was that they didn't have to do much at all to get those chances, while we huffed and puffed for much less. It was genuinely like a lower league side who had put together a really brave showing against a much higher level team but lacked the relevant quality in and around each box.

They are not empowered to do anything with that asset - this was discussed at the AGM. Ironically, in response to the obvious fiction that EFG would somehow get hold of Cappielow by virtue of owning a stake in the club.

I don’t disagree. I’m not talking about offering up outright ownership of Cappielow - i was talking about a stake in it. I certainly wouldn’t rule out offering x% ownership/security over the ground if Y% level of investment/cash injection justified it. None of us know what this mysterious offer is at the moment - all I’m saying is that we shouldn’t rule anything out until we know exactly what’s on the table, and should then judge it on its own merits also as yourself and others have said, Cappielow itself represents a significant liability in terms of upkeep & maintenance costs. If someone were to come in who genuinely has the best interests of the club at heart it might be in our interests for them to have some skin in the game when it comes to the stadium

There is enough in this squad with an actual competent manager in charge to see us safe. His constant groaning about budgets, off field issues, playing teenagers doesn’t tell the story of last season aswell. His record speaks for itself. Get him in the fucking bin!

Murray out to fuck. He's clueless.

Without Cappielow, we - the owners - have exactly one valuable asset, which is SFA/SPFL membership. Cappielow is expensive to maintain. Cappielow's owners, to cover such maintenance, would charge us rent. I can't see how anything but insolvency would result from that on a long enough timeline.

Seen enough - spend the fighting fund getting shot of Murray

^^^ Finally kens the score. A team of 6 foot 3 hammer throwers is required. Bring Him Home.

I maintain that administration, relegation, and a clean slate on a vastly stripped-back model is preferable to gambling the existence of the club itself on 8th place Championship finishes each season.

Would be good to have a strong, motivational figure to help prevent heads from dropping.

Murray has no excuses now btw. That's a strong bench and a strong XI, by the standards of a lower-half Championship team.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/26543224.inverclyde-consortium-submits-written-offer-save-morton/

Lucky dip on the euro millions tonight it is, then.

MCT just seems completely unfit for purpose in its current guise. We need to clear the decks again

Absolutely batshit crazy. Whether deliberately or not, they have pretty much thrown the troublemakers under the bus with that statement. Essentially a denial of there being any further talks on investment, followed by a long & rambling doubling down on the points contained in the statement that was read out at the AGM. I’m delighted that we now have confirmation EFG wont be getting involved in the club. They can fking do one and focus their efforts on their portfolio or 5th tier amateur outfits. BYE! Hopefully the troublemakers responsible for this mess have the decency to step down immediately and allow the rest of the MCT leadership to do their jobs without any more drama & needless distractions

From what have read this week about the troublemaker it seems when he is not on the board he is causing problems. Can only assume he was the one pushing for an AGM & accusing MCT of breaching articles. An ex director also indicated this person did make doing anything at MCT impossible to achieve due to constant interuptions.

Sorry, I didn't make my point particularly well. I meant more that the way the community and fanbase has been galvanised, post AGM, makes me feel confident that the club isn't going to go to the wall. I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. And yes you are right, we don't know of any other investment opportunities. It is disappointing nothing further of this consortium has arrived. Personally, I feel that MCT just isn't ever going to work because of the continuous internal battles and our fanbase just isn't big enough to sustain a full time model without significant investment/sponsorship. I would much rather we had someone come and buy the club or take majority control rather than this weird Estrella offer of selling off a chunk of the club for a pretty small cash injection. Granted Dalrada has ended up a mess but they gave us a hell of lot more money for some seats at the boardroom in return. Given the antics of the Estrella crew I just don't want them near the club at all, appreciate I might be in the minority here.

Response from Dean at MCT came in during the night. Basically saying it was a joint statement between "an MCT Director" and Estrella, understands it didn't read as clearly as it could have, and legal reasons means they can't comment further right now, but they hope to be able to soon.

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.

Yeah, that's a good point. One of my big frustrations with candidates is they talk about things like youth teams, communication, etc rather than a focus on what MCT should be doing in terms of ownership, governance and strategy. McLellans was closest to this but if this was his way of doing it then he should have been upfront. People might have agreed and supported a fresh start if sold that way but this isn't the way to go about it. The people involved are also volunteers doing their best and getting pressure for doing so. Depending on your opinion they might be doing well or badly, but I think it would be very difficult to say they are acting maliciously or out of self interest (at MCT level anyway). It's not a good way to treat people if nothing else or encourage anyone thinking of applying to do so.

Hold your horses, we've still got a muppet in the dugout