Leaderboard

So, the consortium open with: "We would like to make it absolutely clear that our involvement with Greenock Morton Football Club is not driven by any intention to take over the club or to purchase GMFC. We are not coming forward with an agenda, nor are we looking to take control of the club." This is complete nonsense. You are literally trying to purchase GMFC and take majority control of the club by asking for 60%. It is blatantly false to claim otherwise. "We appreciate that supporters and members of the board may naturally have questions about our intentions, and we believe it is important to be transparent from the outset." You've already failed to do that, we don't even know who four of you are! "We have not approached GMFC with demands or a list of conditions. We have not said that we want to buy the club, take it over or dictate its future direction." You are literally offering to buy 60% of the club! That is buying it, taking it over and having the power to dictate its future direction! "A 60% shareholding is our minimum requirement." So you claim to not have any demands or conditions, you claim to not be wanting control of the club, when you are in fact demanding majority control? Do you think everyone buttons up the back?! "What is the minimum MCT contribution required for the consortium's £150,000 commitment to continue, and how does this reconcile with the consortium's stated assumption of primary responsibility for future funding? The minimum required contribution is £12,500." So this confirms, MCT have to pay the exact same amount as the consortium at a minimum to dilute their shareholding and lose majority control of the club along with ownership of Cappielow as the consortium have to pay to gain all of the above, and when MCT payments inevitably drop below that level the funding from the consortium will immediately stop. This is absolutely outrageous, it's genuinely offensive to expect anyone to accept this disgrace. "We would want Cappielow to remain available as potential security should additional funding ever be required through a bank loan or a loan from one of the consortium members. In such circumstances, a standard security over the stadium could be considered. This is not to suggest that such borrowing will necessarily be required, but we believe the option should remain available as a standard means of financing a business." The GMFC board never being able to jeopardise the future of Cappielow in this fashion is exactly why it's been moved to a separate company to protect it. This can never be allowed to happen. Nice touch as well to float the idea of it being a consortium member who provides the loan secured against Cappielow. So the consortium can get majority control of the club, have a loan from one of that consortium secured against Cappielow, wind down funding themselves, oversee the club they control failing to make repayments on that loan, and oh look, now a consortium member owns Cappielow themselves! How convenient! "During the contracting phase we would agree a contractual structure that provides MCT confirmation that Cappielow would not be sold and only used for football." Doesn't stop you using it for security as a loan though that could make this invalid though? Or charging an extortionate rent once you've seized control of it if you can't go as far as demolishing it to grab the land? "4 of the consortium members have asked for their identities to be kept anonymous at this stage. This is in part due to the negative social media directed to some of the other consortium members. All members will be identified prior to the final vote." This is transparent bullshit. How could they have wanted to withhold their identities when the consortium was first announced due to negative social media attention towards other consortium members, when no one knew who the other members were then either? It's clearly total nonsense. Announcing the rest of their identities only after an initial due diligence vote is also not acceptable. It couldn't be more obvious that the point of this consortium is an asset grab and they couldn't care less about what's good for Morton. Letting them into the club would be a death sentence, this needs to be stopped on Monday.

Please take this in the spirit it’s intended, because I think you’re doomed to an ongoing state of resentment unless you make the effort to understand how some other supporters feel. I’ll preface this by saying I’m strongly in opposition to the consortium. I, like many others, was intending to vote yes to the Estrella deal until your statement at the meeting. I happen to think we did dodge a bullet, for reasons that are now well documented, but that’s irrelevant - the reason I didn’t vote for it was your speech. If you think we missed an opportunity to save Morton by getting EFG on board, then you simply have to accept responsibility for your role in what you view as a missed opportunity, if you’re to have any sort of credibility. Blaming individuals that you clearly have issues with, while absolving yourself entirely, just makes you look arrogant. You also seem to be positioning MCT and EFG in direct opposition, as though the supporters faced a binary choice between the two. We did not. MCT are already in place and are inextricably linked to GMFC, EFG are not. A rejection of the EFG investment is not an endorsement of the MCT board or how MCT is being run. Unfortunately, the main thrust of your argument is to attack the MCT board and show their failings as evidence that we should have endorsed EFG. It can be true, and I believe it to be, that we were right to chase away EFG and, entirely separately, have a job on our hands to hold the MCT board to a higher standard of performance. Your ongoing insistence on ignoring Estrella’s failures in closing this deal hinders the latter and further damages your credibility. The evidence you claim to have, some of which you’ve now posted, highlights another issue I have. Your involvement in this process seems to have gone far beyond the level of access any MCT member should have had. This goes right back to when EFG bizarrely quoted you in their initial press release about the club, the first such amateurish move by them. This makes it very difficult to trust that you were acting without self interest. I’m not going to insult you, and I apologise if you feel hurt by the lack of warmth from fellow fans, if you’ve been doing what you genuinely feel is best for the club. But you should remember that the MCT board are also Morton fans. If we were to extend some grace to you, that you must have the best interests of the club at heart as a fan, you must surely extend the same grace to them. You have not done so at any stage. The fact is that the Estrella deal is dead, and many people are relieved. I suspect this will bother you for some time to come but dragging it up like this is helping nobody. I assume you’ve started this again in the hope you can save McLennan and bloody the nose of those who you perceive to have wronged you in the process. McLennan is going to be held accountable for his actions and has nobody to blame but himself. I hadn’t heard of you until you stood up and gave the opening monologue at the Dalrada meeting, which left those of us in the room quite bewildered and was basically ignored. You were then met with outright hostility at the infamous Estrella meeting. Quite an achievement when you were, at times, speaking in direct opposition to someone as unpopular as Chris McEleny. You’ve now delivered the Dalrada speech, the Estrella statement, spoke at length on a podcast and had several pages of dialogue on here. You’ve won over very few people, alienating far more. I suggest some introspection as to why that might be. Apologies for the time taken out of anyone’s day who actually bothered to read all that.

As per the actual proposal, it involves: • less up front investment committed - indeed less than the 'drop in the ocean' that Graham Barr, MCT and the club labelled the previous proposal • for a larger shareholding • to then be steered by the whims of a ringer consortium - what happens as/when these 10 figures disagree amongst themselves? Who knows! • without any credible plan of moving the club forward, or indeed a coherent explanation for their interest at all There were some good reasons to be sceptical of the EFG proposal itself, as well as the sustainability of its working relationship with GMFC and MCT. You cannot possibly argue with a straight face that this is a more serious proposal. To do so is either to indulge in fantasies about the Big Business investors that don't match their stated prospectus - or is just blatant double standards.

My specific question isn't included in the list but can see parts of it in other questions asked and can understand the editing but I'm still not clearer to understanding why, if their sole aim is to support the club and there's nothing about them wanting a return on investment or anything like that, why can't they just put that money to the club through an MCT membership? They say they want to share their expertise as well as their finances. Well... there's at least one position available on the MCT board. Join up and stand for election. Everything they're promising can be done without selling any of the club to them if their aims are as altruistic as they claim.

Anyone who read the two ex player's statements and thought they had the slightest clue wants their head checked. They don't know what MCT is and what it does. Increasingly just looks like they've wandered in to fulfill someone else's agenda.

Call me an old fuddy-duddy but back in my day we were allowed to look at the evidence and examine it before swearing that we'd accept it and attach conditions to it.

I think we need to make sure folk don't get bogged down in the detail. This needs punted. No negotiation, just punted and tell them they're not welcome. End of.

The second half was more pleasing than the first half for me, because it showed that the management team and the players have more than one mode of playing and can work together to do so. By being simply a bit more conservative - not inviting pressure and still creating chances - we restricted Queens' Park and their mysterious job lot of mercenary players to not a single shot on target when 2-0 down and chasing. Showing that we can change between different gears is a huge step forward - if you added Cochrane for Robertson then we could actually have a fighters' punch chance against top half sides too. Pressing off the ball was much better than under the clown and we now have a legit way to score (a giant counter-attack wave) that his glacial passing style of futba prevented all along. Shame O'Halloran made a total mess of his chance to make it 3-0, as his cameo as a defensive forward hounding their back line was perfect for the situation he and Miller were managing. Sandilands and Borso deserve enormous credit for their similar shifts as well as some good strength and quality in possession too.

The reason we're in this situation is absolutely not because of the supporters, it's not even because the MCT membership stalled the Estrella deal, because that is what happened before EFG pulled the plug. The reason we're circling admin is Dalrada not paying their bills and the GMFC board who budgeted based on them doing so. Anything else is blame shifting as if Estrella was the only way out, something it seems you still can't accept as the case. Was the Estrella deal better than the new consortium deal on the table? Yes. Does that mean that given the information at the time MCT members made the wrong decision? Definitely not. MCT board sent out the opinion of their lawyers that the Estrella deal amounted to majority control. Even if you don't think that was the case, were the board at that time to overrule their legal advice, or are you saying that they didn't receive that advice at all?

it’s wild how many of the 18 points apply to Grahams actions on the last few weeks. You really couldn’t make this up 1. Incompetence across the organisation; low standards which appear to have become the norm 2. No apparent focus on serving MCT Members and optimising performance and outcomes for our assets (the Club and Cappielow) - rich coming from a man who has ignored the questions of MCT members while acting to further his own agenda 3. A lack of professionalism - discussing company business on a WhatsApp group which then gets shared publicly. Shouting and swearing at a board meeting. Shining examples of professionalism 4. Poor governance (like Board meetings with no Calendar, no Agendas and no Minutes) - is this a joke? I don’t think anyone needs me to point out the irony of this 5. A lack of pace and urgency (despite the emergency we are in) - I voted for you but the first I heard from you was the thread you posted on here 4 weeks later (where you failed to acknowledge let alone answer any of the questions put to you) 6. A lack of basic human courtesy. Like a Morton Legend, George, being voted on and not so much as a “hello and welcome!” - actions speak louder than words. You have been condemned by yours. At least George had the decency to step down. 7. Poor internal and external communications (we feel like we’re operating in the dark as do many MCT Members. Selective sharing of and response to communication internally and externally, to even the most basic and key questions) - coming from the man who failed to respond to any of the questions being put to him by MCT members then set up a meeting at such laughably short notice that only 8 people showed up. 8. Dishonesty -such as being elected on the basis of transparency & togetherness then pursuing a course of action which is the exact opposite? 9. Refusal to seek help and accept offers of help (and that goes back many months) 10. Not even a hint that MCT Directors feel they are responsible in any way for the mess that MCT and our Club are in and have been allowed to get into - I noticed that your statement didn’t include any acknowledgement or admission of wrongdoing on your part for your behaviour since being elected. So yeah, failure to take responsibility for your own actions and the consequences thereof 11. A “we know best,” arrogant attitude - I didn’t pick up much of this from their statement, but yours absolutely reeks of it! 12. A lack of respect for key stakeholders including Members - such as ignoring MCT members questions, and attempting to remove democratically elected board members without making any attempt to engage the MCT membership? 13. An absence of procedures, a business plan, the basics. And if these things exist us new Directors haven’t been told about them never mind shown them 14. Fear of change and fear of challenge and being challenged. A closure of ranks is the norm for David, Dean and Brian - you aren’t responding very well to the challenge you are currently facing. You too are exhibiting signs of “closing ranks” by organising a meeting that excludes other mct directors, as well as trying to orchestrate their removal via a WhatsApp group. 15. A lack of understanding of Company Law and other laws, business and Board best practice and even MCT’s own rules leading to concerning processes, decisions and actions 16. A poor and weak understanding and approach to risk management - every move you have made since being voted in has weakened your position and damaged your standing among supporters, demonstrating staggeringly poor judgement & decision making. 17. No reports on what the MCT and Club Boards have been doing, what they intend to do, what are Plans “A, B and C” in what has been allowed to become an emergency, to deliver for MCT Members and our assets, support and community. No MCT financial updates (how much is in the MCT bank, how much do we Members contribute to our Club every month? Etc.) 18. Despite requests from us since Day 1, we only got a Club Finance update around five weeks after our appointment. And nothing in writing. We thank Ken, the Club Financial Director, for this update and we assume the timing of his update was because he inherited next to nothing to help and inform him when he was appointed

Need to focus on the consortium part for now but don't think it gives much new info. The concerning part for me is on Cappielow. While they claimed they want to use warranties to ensure it isn't sold or used for non-football purposes, they now explicitly state they would want Cappielow available as potential security for a loan (from a consortium member or bank) if additional funding is ever required. I'm pretty sure Easdale was involved in a mess at Rangers where loans were secured against their training ground, etc and it led to long term problems. I don't think we can let history repeat itself. Rangers are big enough to bounce back (even if the fans weren't the driver). If we run into difficulties and can't pay loans, are getting less money a year for selling the club (compared to current MCT subscriptions) and don't have Cappielow, we're left with nothing. The sales pitch is essentially trust us, we know what we're doing. That isn't enough.

What the fuck was Ian Murray doing with this lot? Strong performances throughout. Harrison superb but stand outs were Gillespie, Ballantyne and Borso. They were excellent.

100% If the Dalrada defaults had come out of the blue from an erstwhile profitable and flourishing company, you could have some degree of sympathy for the GMFC board for ending us up where we are now. But of course it didn't..... they already had warning signs from the previous season of Dalrada's inability to meet their payments on time, and the dire and worsening financial situation of the company was public knowledge. Nevertheless, they chose to ignore these facts and approve a budget for this season that still relied on Dalrada fully meeting their agreed payments, surely more in hope than expectation. Then, they compounded this disastrous decision by not taking any kind of corrective actions in late spring when the first payment was missed. At that point, the budget should have been adjusted accordingly, all contracted full-time players should have been told they were free to find another club on a free transfer, and Murray should have been told to build a part-time squad. That single decision, followed by inaction as soon as it became clear that we had grossly over-budgeted for this season, has led us to the crisis we now find ourselves in. The fact that there has been no apparent consequences or even acknowledgement for it at GMFC board level it is frankly astonishing. The main duties of a board of directors is to protect the interests of the stakeholders, in this case the MCT members, and ensure the financial integrity of the business. They have clearly failed in their duty to do so. In any other line of business, the person(s) responsible for this level of negligence and incompetence would have been long gone by now, but hey, this is Morton, where normal rules of business seem not to apply and gross incompetence has no consequences.

I don't pay my dues to MCT to be more of a fund raising / community group tho'. I have put money into MITC to support fund raising and community issues. Before MCT bought the club I never put money into MCT when it was there to increase the wage bill because I've felt me paying in every home game, buying a season book, buying the shirt, a pie, a Bovril, a half time 50/50, tickets to player of the year, sponsoring a player, making an effort to buy Morton tat for folk at Christmas, etc was more than enough. It's keeping the club fan owned that makes me pay that extra few bob. If MCT was no longer the owner that money will be coming out of MCT and going behind the bar in The Norseman. Not only is this deal really fucking shite as it stands they are telling us if the MCT input drops so does theirs. The MCT input WILL drop as I wont be the only one cancelling my standing order if it goes through. So even if this goes through we will not be getting the money they are currently proposing from them.

Here is a straight cut and paste from the letter to members by @Graham McLennan aka Alistair Renfrew. Poor governance (like Board meetings with no Calendar, no Agendas and no Minutes) Was Monday’s meeting the level of governance you were going for, Alistair?

Everyone being united to kick the consortium dogshit out is the most important thing so reluctant to go to the same detail on the competing statements from different MCT board members, but broadly there's a Thomas Francis shaped flaw in the McLennan and McMaster statement. If the existing MCT board were so disorganised and incompetent that there was no communication with new directors joining the board amid total failures of governance, to the point that working with them is "untenable" and they felt they had no choice but to first ask for their resignations then try to start a coup when that offer was refused, why is another new board member who was elected at the same time as McLennan & McMaster putting his name to a statement alongside those existing board members? A statement that not only disputes McLennan & McMaster's characterisation of events but explicitly raises concerns about "Graham McLennan's behaviour"? The examples they give of issues they've seen are very light on specifics as well, and where there is something specific it's extremely flimsy. The Estrella deal not going to a vote was the choice of members at the AGM to vote for postponement (a resolution that Graham McLennan & John McMaster didn't vote against) then Estrella taking the huff and doing a runner in response. Take that up with your pals in Estrella whose own statement at the AGM blew it up. Also as an aside, once again in this statement legal action by Estrella is mentioned; are we supposed to be sad that people who were seriously considering legal action against us didn't gain a stake in the club? The offer of £120K-150K brought by Gordon Ritchie has already been proven to be completely unserious nonsense which couldn't be taken to the membership, by Gordon Ritchie's own public telling of events. Also trying not to be too judgemental, we've seen MCT emails go out with errors as well, but there are so many grammatical issues in their statement that I can't even figure out what they're trying to say in some places. The justification for the underhanded whatsapp message (a justification given after claiming they have no idea why members have submitted votes of no confidence in them) is totally muddled. As for the "we volunteered for this vote, will anyone else?!" attempt to muddy the waters, nice try. John McMaster can make that claim to martyrdom if he likes as he's done it without the requests for a VONC in him meeting the 10% threshold, but Graham McLennan would be facing this vote regardless of whether he wanted to because the 10% threshold was met. It's happening because the members demanded it whether he liked it or not, not because of his decency in putting himself forward for it.

Yeah, who snaked who here? Was it the trio who, shortly a week after running on a togetherness platform, demanded the resignation of three incumbent board members and sent out a rallying cry to that effect? Or was it the guys who didn't do that? Real mystery for the ages, that, I can see why you're so confused. Come off it. You can play this 'ooh it's not constructive' kumbayah act with someone else, but don't insult my intelligence with it. Let's say he's right about that. Wouldn't that be something material to mention while running for the board? That he's joining to steward the Estrella deal to completion, the deal he believes is a great opportunity for Morton to survive and thrive? And that it's under threat from the rest of the board?

I was also at the meeting and the above is a pretty accurate write up. Just a few things to add: George Anderson is stepping down as a Director of MCT Graham McLennan and John McMaster both still want the "other three Directors" to resign, but recognise that they can't force them out When asked why they wanted the "other three Directors" to resign - as opposed to just the Chair, if significant change was required - Graham McLennan answered that the "other three" weren't fulfilling their roles properly as Directors Anderson, McLennan, and McMaster complained that both MCT and the club was full of cliques, which made it hard to function and communicate. McLennan pushed back significantly when asked if Anderson-McMaster-McLennan were a clique Anderson's, McLennan's and McMaster's experience of being on the MCT board so far - they've been kept in the dark and/or not consulted by the other board members. This includes not being consulted or even advised when Member Update emails are being sent out When asked, McMaster said he thought the Consortium's offer was poor. Despite members of the audience agreeing it was poor and worse than poor, McLennan and Anderson didn't give an opinion, just to get the offer to the MCT membership as soon as possible. This didn't happen as the offer was circulated a couple of weeks later. McLennan said there was no reason to delay circulating the offer. Anderson, McLennan, and McMaster know as much about the Consortium as anyone else (part of them being kept in the dark). The Consortium did send in an earlier draft which would give them 65% of the Club, this got revised down to 60% following feedback from MCT As far as Anderson, McLennan, and McMaster are aware MCT Chair David Whitton has been meeting and communicating with the Consortium on his own. McLennan has offered to support Whitton when communicating and meeting with the Consortium, but this offer has not been taken up Overall, I agree with @Fuxake that I don't think anyone is lying about any of this. There's a lot of passion for Morton, fear for the viability of the Club, differences of opinion about the best way forward, plus a lot of misplaced and unsaid assumptions leading to relatively minor issues got blown out of proportion and then a further entrenchment of positions. I also think the informal chat format should be worth repeating by MCT Directors with the membership. It's only available for folk local to Greenock, but with communication being recognised as a significant failing of MCT, I think it's something worth considering.

I went along tonight as my train home coincided with the meeting starting. I thought it was clear the three directors clearly want the best for Morton but perhaps only Graham really understood what MCT board is set up to do and there was confusion from the other two as to what they wanted to achieve at MCT as their answers seemed more about what GMFC should be doing. I was really taken aback at the time frames given from becoming directors to deciding the other directors had to resign especially after they admitted this was done without any real conversation or meeting with the other directors. For instance they said the MCT directors who were in place (the three who were asked to resign) had asked for a few days after the AGM to regroup as it was a lot of work and a lot had happened and this was agreed to but they then decided to request resignations before the end of August. So taking away an agreed break for a few days that decision was made in about a week? With no discussions with the other board members? Tbh that has led me to believe this was probably, or at least possibly, a decision the three new directors made before joining the board. I was genuinely flabbergasted to find out that none of them approached the other new board member to sound out his thoughts or opinions or even to let him know their intentions to request resignations. McMaster in particular seemed to think Francis was biased in some way and seemed angry with him but McLennan cut him off before he went further. McLennan appears to be a smart fella who knows what he's doing, admitted his own mistakes at times, but didn't seem to allow the leeway he gives his own decision making to others. Fwiw I have issues with the leaked text and how he went about things but, fuck it, if the folk I worked with saw some of the stuff I texted about them when they fuck up I doubt I would be popular with them. I guess the difference is my texts aren't looking for their removal. Maybe if that energy from him when into looking at what the other board members had done right, or what strengths they bring, a cohesive group playing to each members strengths would have worked well but there's now a clear disconnect of trust between these three board members and the rest of the board. I genuinely hope Graham can come out and ruminate on his choices and try and mend those bridges. Even tho I sent in my VONC I don't know if I would vote for him in the forthcoming vote after hearing him but I would need to hear something from him that makes me believe he will try and work with the four other directors instead of trying to usurp him. Although I don't know how much that would wash with others. I didn't think that many questions were asked all in. I had to leave ten minutes early so maybe there were more at the end. Overall the meeting could be summed up as 'here's all the stuff the board have been shit at that's why we did what we did' But, tbh, that didn't wash with me as I got the impression that even if it was true* it still doesn't excuse the speed in which they acted. *I don't think anyone lied fwiw. I think that, often, assumptions were made and that led to confirmation bias so relatively minor issues got blown up. Russell was taking notes and doing his best Mr. Inbetween impression so he'll have a better memory of it all

And as a parting shot, I'd like to register my delight at the natural order of things being asserted against such a stupid wee outfit. To see those Green-voting, sandal wearing freaks and losers rail in increasingly shrill tones against Grant Gillespie - while their gormless team allowed him to run the show = absolutely fucking delicious.

You can only hope that Murray is ashamed and embarrassed by his behaviour in the last few months before he was belatedly shown the door

All MCT members want is all information provided to help them make informed decisions. The vast majority have no skin in the game when it comes to believing either side and would happily vote out any current MCT directors who have been massively deceitful and misled the members they were elected to represent, whether that be any of the original directors during the Estrella negotiations or the new directors for their underhanded politicking behind the backs of the members. In my opinion, and unfortunately for Estrella and anyone involved with them from a Morton persuasion, the burden of providing evidence of MCT wrongdoing and confirming their honest intentions is a higher bar for venture capitalists wishing to purchase 35% of the club than it is for the status quo of Morton fans representing the members of the organisation who already own the club. Telling Morton fans that the status quo isn’t being honest with them without providing any evidence to back it up and expecting it was ever going to have a response other what happened is naive in the extreme.

Even if every other word in this post is true, that statement is irrefutably factually correct (other than characterising it as a huff being an opinion). The statement was read, the members at the AGM passed a resolution to postpone the vote in the aftermath, and Estrella withdrew after the vote was postponed. These are objective facts. If they were doing the hokey cokey for several days before with withdrawing then deciding not to, whether they were justified in doing so or not, that does not change the reality they only publicly withdrew after the vote was postponed and not before. Their own statement on the matter explicitly said the vote not going ahead was the reason they withdrew: https://estrellafootball.group/news/estrella-football-group-withdraws-from-proposed-investment-in-greenock-morton-fc "As a direct result of the outcome of this week's members' meeting of Morton Club Together (MCT), Estrella Football Group is withdrawing from its proposed investment in Greenock Morton Football Club." "with this week's vote on the proposal not going ahead, Estrella unfortunately has no choice but to step back from the deal." If they have documentation which proves their claims to be true, why would they not share it? Proof that the MCT board were lying would unquestionably lead to widespread demands for a vote of no confidence in the directors proven to have lied, a vote those directors would lose in a landslide if they didn't immediately resign. This would then have opened the door for a new MCT board Estrella could trust to see the deal to completion - they wouldn't even have had to wait for new elections for this outcome, considering who was elected the same night. Instead they withdrew from the process without presenting evidence, and if Graham McLennan is to be believed, they threatened legal action over the the NDA being broken by MCT: a course of action which would likely scare MCT off from ever publishing any documentation about timelines themselves, knowing Estrella might respond with further legal threats. Do you see why that looks suspicious to people? Estrella's own statement of 11 September explicitly stated the following about that email: "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." By Estrella's own version of events they didn't see this email until Tuesday 18 August, after the AGM on Monday 17 August. If what you're saying here is true about them threatening to withdraw on the Saturday 15 August and deciding to drafting the statement to be read at the AGM in response to that email, then Estrella lied in their statement of 11 September.

They don't say, they just say it's the minimum and it is required no matter what league we're in, so if we freefall down to the LL West we're still on the hook for that bill, and if we fail to make that payment the Consortium is freed from its obligation to pay its pathetic amount of 12.5k a month. But then they own the stadium so I imagine they'd be OK with that.

I might have skipped past the detail, but is it confirmed what will happen if MCT subs (inevitably) drop below £12,500 a month should this go through? It's extremely likely that over time MCT contributions will not match the consortium's. I don't see why they should, for that matter. "We want the bulk of the shares and we want the stadium, but only if you put in the same money as us" is no selling point. Also, would the forwarded £150,000 for this season be enough to see us steer clear of adminstration? Because if it's not enough to completely guarantee that, then the club could still end up in admin this year anyway, only we'll have given Cappielow up as a potential asset for proceedings. That doesn't sound clever.

So much for: Transparency Togetherness Competence Governance I'll retract the sentence referring to Alistair Renfrew seeing as no reason not to take him at his word that this wasn't him. I see nothing here that changes my mind that to move on it's best that Graham and John step down. The other board members, minus Thomas, might well do so in time as well, but it's telling that even Thomas Francis signed the majority board statement, having joined at the same time as the other three.

@Graham McLennan why was your statement that’s just been sent out written by Alistair Renfrew?

This all sounds plausible. It’s just a shame Graham has chosen not to give his own version of events and instead continues to dodge the questions being put to him. If he thinks the other directors tanked the deal, then he should have spoken to them to get their version of events. If he wasn’t happy with the explanation, then he could have voiced his concerns to the MCT members & tried to get them removed by legitimate means. I don’t doubt that Graham, John & George only want the best for the club. Nor am I defending Dean, David & Brian or claiming they are without fault. The problem I have is the way in which Graham & co have conducted themselves since being elected. Fair play to George for doing the honourable thing and stepping down. Graham & John need to do the same as their positions are untenable.

Thanks for the update. I honestly think that every issue McLennan outlined here is of his own making. By his own actions immediately after being elected, he’s made it impossible for himself to properly fulfil his role as director. I’m quite a petty man, but if I were on the receiving end of his attempted coup, I’d be keeping him in the dark as well. Even if he wants to blame others for his inability to perform the role, he’s admitting he cannot and, by his own logic, should resign. There’s no way back for him. I’ll certainly have more respect for Anderson than the other two if this is true, I don’t doubt that he wants the best for Morton but he’s made a serious error of judgment and would be doing the right thing by walking away.

The “meeting” that’s not a meeting but is a meeting is for anyone who has no confidence in the 3 recently elected but also it’s a meeting for “anyone who cares about our club”? No minutes or recording of it either just seems a bit weird. Why are these options not available? What will this meeting actually change? Does this mean the 10% threshold was hit and resignations are now due? Seems to be a bit of playing daft here too by saying no reasons have been given by MCT when it’s very obvious why people have given their votes of no confidence. That just oozes contempt for me, and I think we’ve had enough of that pish to last us a lifetime.

He's by far the most effective striker we have at the club based on that performance. Sandilands has looked a different player also. Another solid game from him today. Very good performance there. Didn't look like a bottom v 2nd bottom game, thought it was a decent standard from both teams. Pleasing how we put our foot on their neck and dominated the game after going ahead, first half was very open at times with them probably being the more dangerous looking team.

Great day at the office. They never laid a glove on us for the last 45 mins. Borso was magnificent today.

I forgot we're a football club and not just a soap opera. Mon the ton.

I asked for the evidence to be posted and it has been posted, and I thank Alasdair for posting it. To me, it shows that the extent of the Dalrada fiasco, and the Morton board's knowledge of it, was not shared with Estrella in its entirety until very late in the day - August. That's most of what was alleged, and that allegation is now seen as true. The rest of the allegation is that this was a deliberate, material withholding, a misleading. I don't think that has been proven. It could just as easily be naivete. A lot of people, myself included, were charmed by Brian Bonar such that we believed - mistakenly! - that he was a man of his word. This is NOT to exonerate anyone at all. This is NOT to say it was an excusable error. But it seems to be quite possible that, perhaps out of heads in the sane, they wanted to think the best case scenario would just work out in the world. Again, it is not to exonerate. I think the respective boards had two duties that they failed in: A) They had an affirmative duty to share the material financial circumstances of the club in line with the memorandum of understanding, and I don't think this was fully done. They had an affirmative duty to be even more transparent, down to the penny, about everything financial from the moment they went to Estrella looking for a loan. If you go cap in hand like that to a potential investor, that's the time you lose a lot of leverage. You just have to put your cards on the table at that point, otherwise you risk destroying trust. Between that and Estrella's own mystifying inability to speak clearly and fairly, that trust was destroyed. I am on record as disagreeing with the current incumbents' characterization of the Dalrada issue as one of cashflow rather than structure. If the club's cashflow depends on a sponsor that, effectively, does not exist, that is not a cashflow issue but a structural one. If I build my house on four pillars and one of them is made out of cotton wool, that isn't a brick issue. So even if the board(s) truly believed this, I don't think they could reasonably impute that belief onto Estrella, and therefore they should have shared it earlier than they did. To me, this evidence is fairly, but not entirely damning. It confirms much of what was alleged previously, but it falls short, to me at least. And I think in the cold light of day Estrella would agree that they weren't maliciously defrauded, because if you look at the "Revised offer Estrella" screenshot, the language that MCT want removed says the budget was too optimistic, not misleading, not dishonest, nothing like that. And, if I'm not mistaken, Estrella did agree to remove it from the IA, didn't they? This suggests to me that, while it absolutely would have precipitated a huge decrease in trust from Estrella towards MCT/GMFC/both, it actually wasn't the dispositive issue here. I think the evidence, then, doesn't indicate all of what Alasdair said it was. I think it's bad. I think it shows an irresponsible level of optimism from the people who put it together. But I don't regard this as the silver bullet that killed the deal. Alasdair himself admitted, after much obfuscation, the deal was active (albeit on life support) heading into the meeting. What killed the meeting was Alasdair's and Estrella's hubris. As understandable as their anger may be in the light of the failings illustrated by this evidence, they managed to take that failing of their counterparty and turn it into an overwhelming rejection of their own side by the MCT membership. That's on them, and they'll never take that responsibility, so for me that's a chapter closed that we'll just collectively have to live with. I don't regard it as a mass resignation issue for the Boards. I do regard it as a pretty severe failing and once that they should account for in a way they have yet to do so. We simply can't be having these optimistic projections when we already know the frailty of the situation, and we can't be - even if for benign reasons - withholding that information either.

This is an absolute disaster. I've just been trying to catch up on things from Alastair Renfrew's first post but what we now know (please correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially: MCT/GMFC did withhold the true financial position of the club from EFG This seasons budget was based on a fucking gentleman's agreement from a sponsor that's been circling the drain for about a year plunging us head first towards administration New directors called the board out on this, began a process (rightly or wrongly, I'm not sure now) to remove them and have subsequently had hundreds of votes of no confidence against them (myself included) I genuinely now have no idea who is best place to pick up the pieces of this cluster fuck but it looks like it's going to be the very people that caused it and one new guy who has aligned himself with them for some reason.

Confirmation that EFG only knew the full extent of Dalrada's arrears on 11th August. The exchange references a meeting on the previous day at which the amounts and the prospects of them being paid were still being fudged. Confirmation that an MCT director asked EFG to remove information about the reality of the club's financial position from the letter due to go to members.

I'm posting to you, you were speaking to a large audience in an important meeting. You know the difference. Your timeline of when the deal was and wasn't active isn't reliable for the reasons dunning point out: they don't match those published by Estrella. I think you bought into the Estrella thing despite their repeated failures at meeting their goals and you're blind to their 50%-ish role in this failing and I think that's because they made you feel important. If you were in possession of evidence that shows the MCT board willingly misled Estrella in contravention of their memorandum of understanding then the time to present that was at the meeting, then - if applicable - to the police. That you insist people agree with you and are bound to remove directors before you present it suggests to me that you're not as confident in your position as you pretend, same with Estrella shiteing out of legal action of their own. You can go back and look at the posts here from the night before the meeting, many people who were 'yes'es like me turned to not just 'nos' but 'hell nos' because of YOUR actions. You can say that's unfair because MCT lied, but you've still not presented any evidence of this. Every malicious intention you attribute to MCT, of deliberate lying, can be turned around to you. The Davie Moyes Jr. situation is a somewhat petty example. You said one thing, MCT said the other. By your own standards, one of you is guilty of lying. In the absence of evidence, I'm not just going to believe it's not you because you tell me it is. Why would I when you've displayed so far an almost fathomless level of arrogance and poor judgement?

It's possible for people to read and absorb things without agreeing with them. I've read everything you've said, very little of which is new, and it doesn't change my mind. On the first point: I understand passions are running high, but consider that Estrella were up against a pretty unpopular GMFC board, and an MCT board that had also failed to cover itself in glory, and Estrella made a fairly good (but not perfect) offer, and still found themselves massively voted against once they opened their mouths. That's on them and you. On August 16th I was an unenthusiastic 'yes'. By the time you sat down at the meeting I wanted Estrella and you as far away from the club as possible. Look at the vote counts and tell me I'm the only one, tell me I'm the one being unreasonable. Estrella have form for spaffing their load early, which is why they failed at Rimini and failed at Atletico CP. That's as material to their failure at Morton as the (many) failings of the MCT board. Why is one off-limits for scrutiny and not the other? Why is one of them a material factor and the other quietly brushed under the carpet? I don't know if the board knowingly lied to the members about the fate of the Dalrada money, and I'm certainly not taking your word for it. It's plausible for sure. It's equally plausible that, just as you were starstruck by Estrella (proud owners of two five-a-side teams in an all-inclusive resort, and Pro Patria), they believed that they wanted to believe and didn't think their pal Brian would let them down. Either/or, not something that anyone's been able to prove to my satisfaction. But let's say the worst is true and it was a deliberate, calculated lie. You still couldn't finish your tea! That's what you're up against and you still fucked it up, collectively, the lot of you. So if MCT's failures are grounds for their exile and why they shouldn't be listened to, why aren't your failings completely disqualifying? More than any other individual, YOU killed the Estrella deal with your rant. YOU killed it by sitting there mugging and rolling your eyes for the next two and a half hours. YOU killed it by trusting your big mates unconditionally while attributing the worst to everyone else. Hope it was worth it.

Considering their conduct at the AGM and since I think everything points to us dodging a bullet in not having Estrella involved with the club, but it is absolutely wild to say this is a more serious offer than Estrella. It's considerably worse in every respect.

It was always likely to be Miller & O'Halloran for the rest of the season, I don't really understand why anyone is expecting a different appointment. Now that they've actually won a game it would also take a minimum of 24 games for them to have as bad a record as Murray's this season.

Yup. Even if we were to do the mental gymnastics required to believe that Dean, Brian & David are not fit for office & that Graham only found this out in the days following his election, he still chose to try and remove them by sending a written request to them & secretly trying to orchestrate a VONC via his WhatsApp group. This is a massive breach of trust - he should have articulated his concerns to MCT members & then used legitimate means to try and remove them. Of course we could be totally wrong about all of this - all Graham has to do is speak up and correct us by explaining what really happened & why. I wonder why over a month later he is still keeping quiet

None of this changes anything I said. I'm sure he is keen to stick his oar in, but this soon-to-be-ex-director had no idea what he was doing. His statement was an embarrassment, and with the attempted coup having failed, he's now chucked in. So I'm sure he still likes being in and around Cappielow and I'm sure he'll still hang about, but his MCT directorship consisted of: 1) running on a bunch of Braeside Cantera nonsense outside his remit, 2) getting elected, 3) trying to snake the other directors, 4) failing, and 5) resigning. And not a single youth prospect to be seen.

I hope you paid for the hire of the Hospitality Suite @Graham McLennan

It'd be useful if you used this platform to communicate in a transparent manner. It's in your best interest. Questions have been asked on here (and other platforms) - if you've nothing to hide or shy away from, give the people the answers.

Especially when as an MCT Director Graham McLennan can easily log in to the MCT mailbox to read everyone’s votes of no confidence. Said Director could also make effort to read the forum to understand. There is a staggering lack of self awareness on show. Reminds me of when Liz Truss was trying to cling on to PM . Also, funny that Graham signs off everything with love to all. If we look back to the originally leaked message, it’s sign off was love to all. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

No thanks.

I’m not happy with the above. Please therefore pay for the hire of the room in question.

Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend but thanks for setting this up. In lieu of me being able to ask in person, I have a few questions for you. 1. You mentioned standing for re-election. Do you intend to stand down prior to this happening? 2. If/when the number of VONC received for you crosses the 10% threshold then it triggers a member vote for your removal. Given the short timeline you mention for this proposed re-election, how would you envisage the sequence and timelines involved? It could potentially be confusing to hold 2 votes regarding the same board members & seems a bit rushed to try and conduct this within the next 48-72 hours. 3. Over the past 4 weeks a message - allegedly sent by you to a WhatsApp group - has been circulating amongst the support. Can you confirm or deny its authenticity? Regarding the reasons for these notices against you - I don’t think there is any requirement for members to give a reason when submitting a notice of no confidence(I didn’t give any reason when I sent my own in) but I am happy to give you the reasons why I submitted mine & have actively encouraged others to do the same. I voted for you, John & George to become directors. In your case it was based on your past work for MCT & the club, and on the strength of what you said in your election address bio. In the cases of John & George it was because of their experience in the game & their past service to the club. I was very surprised & disappointed to hear that shortly after election, the 3 of you had taken steps to remove sitting directors. If it was your intention to do this you should have stated it in your election address bio. Failure to do so means that in my opinion you had no mandate to take this action and I personally felt like I had been misled when I voted for “transparency and togetherness”. Even if I accept that you may have legitimate reasons to want these directors removed, you should have articulated them in your statement & pursued a legitimate means of expediting their removal(including engagement with MCT members & using the removal mechanisms provided in the articles). Your failure to do this is the reason why I have requested that we vote to remove you, John & George from the MCT board.