Greacen2000

Yup this is very poor. 2 great servants to the club have moved without any acknowledgement or thanks, while Dale (who hasn’t achieved much during his short time here) gets a statement thanking him for his efforts. Little things like this take virtually no time or effort to get right, so it’s pretty frustrating and feels a bit like the club are trolling us or trying to piss people off.

No matter how small the fee might have been for Lyall, this is totally unacceptable from the club. If it turns out that Keay is in the same boat then serious questions need to be asked.

Great point - it’s not ideal to be releasing this sort of a statement about Dale when no official mention has been made of Millen or Farrell, both of whom have contributed immeasurably more to the club and will be far more missed & hard to replace.

Bye Dale “you won’t be missed”

I agree that Shaw needs to improve a lot, but he showed enough last season for me to believe there’s a good player in there somewhere. Hopefully the gaffer can help him find a bit of consistency. Even just getting the clippers out and getting rid of that barnet would probably improve his performances by 10-15% alone.

Must have been an error as it no longer says that and only mentions Baird at the bottom now. Very disappointed Lyall is off. He was starting to look good and I was hoping we would be able to hang onto him

That’s fair. I did start with the easier open goal things at the top of the list and accept that the last few suggestions might be a bit more of a stretch. the viability or otherwise of those last few options would as you say depend on the availability of volunteers, and then in the case of the phone campaign would also be dependent on how many members have chosen to share their phone number when signing up (I suspect not very many). I agree that this can be annoying (I’ve been on the receiving end of them) but they can also be effective, which is why charities & some companies like beer52 do it. If the caller comes across as a pushy salesperson, then it will piss people off. If it’s respectful of their time, and offers to remove their number from the database if they don’t want future calls etc then I do think it could be done in a way that wouldn’t damage any goodwill that MCT has. Im not for a minute suggesting I’ve got all the answers, just making a few suggestions to highlight that we could do a lot more than the current “do absolutely nothing” approach that’s being taken to increasing membership & contributions.

I get that on one hand you could say that for a club of our size, MCT membership might be at saturation point, but on the other hand I would say there are a lot of open goals that we could use to try and bring in more members at little or no cost to MCT. Some of these would involve partnering with the club to offer incentives (which as the 90% owner and a major funder, should absolutely be something we are doing beyond the season ticket discount anyway). A few suggestions for starters(based on comments above along with a few ideas of my own) - - make it easier for members to increase their contributions - allow junior membership for under 16 - maybe have an option of “gifting” membership to another person - each month hold a prize draw for all paying members. Prizes such as match day ticket, a signed shirt, possibly ranging up to stuff like a season ticket or hospitality day. These things all have great value to supporters, would potentially make membership more attractive and could be offered at little to no actual cost to the club - make more of an effort to promote MCT on club socials - even just a little intro & outro card on each video the club posts which mentions that the club is fan owned and encourages people to get involved. - maybe have campaign days where volunteers go out in the town centre try to get passers by to sign up - have a telephone campaign, much like inn by some charities do with their donors (again potentially run by mct volunteers). Call up any members who have provided a phone number, thank them for their support, update them on what’s happening & ask if they would be interested in increasing their contribution - following on from the previous point, either email or call a member every time they cancel their payment to discuss why

I don’t know the specific numbers involved, but I’m hoping that the fact we finished a couple of places higher than expected at the time & budgeted for might wipe out some or all of that forecasted loss

Along with the increased sponsorship, not having passengers like Mcginn & Broadfoot on the wage bill at the start of the season will also free up some cash to hopefully be put to better use this time round The last few seasons have shown that spending more doesn’t guarantee success. See Raith, Ayr, Dunfermline, QP, Inverness etc etc etc, so yes claiming we are relegation favourites is hyperbolic pish. Hypothetically, if given the choice of 3rd lowest budget in the division with Imrie in charge vs 3rd highest with someone like Mark Wilson, Barry Robson or “broony” in charge I would pick having a good manager above the extra money.

This whole episode has been very unfortunate and entirely avoidable but at least now we can put it behind us and finally get on with planning for the new season. The interim MCT board haven’t done a very good job of managing this situation but credit where it’s due, at least they have communicated the result quickly and also acknowledged that there were issues with the process & its timing. The pain of this process has highlighted several areas for improvement as well as getting people fully engaged so at least there are a few positives we can take from it. It’s also good that the statement confirms the protections against share issue will be added to the articles at the same time as the changes to boardroom structure. In terms of the concerns about Laird remaining in role, I guess we just need to keep an eye on things over the next 6 months and see how he performs. He came across very poorly in the meeting but maybe I will be ok with having an arrogant ar5)ole as an “advisory chair” if he is able to demonstrate some measurable ways in which he has brought value and delivered results. If he isn’t able to do this then we have the opportunity to raise these concerns with Dalrada when the deal is reviewed in 6 months.

Overall a pretty frustrating meeting - a lot of the 1st hour was used up going down rabbit holes not directly related to the contents of the proposal. I was unimpressed by what Laird & the directors had to say, but thought Bonar came across very well and his words went a long way towards reassuring me that nothing nefarious is going on (at least from the Dalrada side). It was interesting that Bonar very quickly agreed that he would be prepared to maintain the same levels of contribution in future while allowing another shirt sponsor if it meant more income for the club. This is a huge concession, and it’s a shame that those responsible for negotiating this deal didn’t think to ask this question back at the time. Bonars willingness to allow the proposed agreement to be shared in full with no redactions was also refreshing and torpedoed the whole “commercially sensitive” line that was being pedalled. His input was in stark contrast to the opaque & evasive comms we have seen from MCT in the past few weeks. Make no mistake - if this deal is rejected & he walks away, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the MCT interim board for their failures to effectively communicate it with MCT members. To that end, I hope that if (as I now believe to be the case) Bonar is acting in good faith, he won’t walk away in the event of the deal being rejected and will instead be willing to come back to the table. For the most part I thought the rep from supporters direct did a good job of chairing the meeting, and it was definitely a good idea bringing him in. At a couple of points the discussion was in danger of being derailed/getting lost in the weeds and he managed to get it back on track. One failure was around giving time to answer questions from online attendees. There should have been a clearly allotted cut off (eg 20 mins in room followed by 20 mins on line), and someone should have taken the action of collating questions from online attendees during the time that in-room questions were being answered. At the moment I am starting to come round to accepting the deal on the proviso that there are cast iron measures to prevent share issue. The composition of the board and positions of other club officials can be reviewed again in the future but for now securing funds is a more immediate concern.

Yeah it’s such a chore when you post something on a public forum and people have the audacity to actually reply. For what it’s worth, I don’t rank the design of the strip particularly high on my list of Morton related priorities at this moment either. The fact however that they have actually ordered and now started selling them with Dalrada as the sponsor before any deal has been signed is another indication that the people running the club at the moment are not doing a very good job. You could argue that making a big fanfare about strip launches & early bird season tickets while staying quiet on more important matters is a bit tone deaf from the club too, but if they hadn’t been launching the strip & season ticket then we would probably be criticising them for inactivity in this area so I will give them a pass on that one at least

My questions for tomorrow - 1. Can you confirm that the guarantee not to issue shares will be signed by directors or inserted into articles at the same time as the other proposed changes are being made to the articles? 2. In the event of this deal being rejected by the clubs owner, what (if any) contingency plans are in place, and what are the next steps from a GMFC; MCT & Dalrada pov? 3. Given that next seasons strip is now on sale with Dalrada branding on the shirt, please confirm i) If this offer is rejected, is there an alternative/back up offer in place to allow Dalrada to remain as our shirt sponsor for the coming season? ii) If not, who took the decision to get shirts printed before our sponsor had been confirmed? iii) How many “Dalrada” shirts have been ordered & at what cost to the club? 4. Have the members of the interim MCT board had the opportunity to review the proposal in full, and has any independent legal or business advice been sought on the proposal? 5. Does the deal contain any wording specific to Dalrada representatives or any other GMFC board members having to approve the addition/removal of MCT board reps? 6. If talks took place with Dalrada representatives to work on this deal in Feb-March(as was reported in local & national press at the time) why has it taken until now for the proposal to be made to the owners of the club? The timing of this has had a significant impact on the club - allowing key players to walk away, and delaying setting the managers budget. It has also created a situation whereby members are being pressurised to make a hasty decision without full knowledge of what they are voting on. 7. Why do the FAQs claim that John Laird has no knowledge of his son’s football analytics company? 8. With regard to John Lairds role, please explain why “The board believes his advisory role is the most appropriate structure at this time, allowing him to provide strategic support without assuming formal board responsibilities”. 9. The FAQs state the 3 skills-based appointees need to be on the board because “being on the board does bring with it a requirement to ensure that business of the club is being conducted in the right manner”. This seems to be at odds with the boards opinion on Mr Laird - please explain why our club Chair is not being held to the same standards and is being exempted from these responsibilities. 10. In the event of MCT contributions dropping below current levels, does this have any impact on the contributions which Dalrada are committing to?

I suspect that as you say we won’t get any further clarifications before Monday, and to be honest I’m not even that confident of things being made much clearer at the meeting. I really do hope it’s a constructive discussion as emotions are running high and this meeting has potential to become toxic. Without having any more information on the deal than anyone else, I’ve inserted my own thoughts on your points in the quote above TLDR - As long as there are cast iron protections against stealth takeover via share issue, I think that as 90% owner, MCT still has ultimate control of the club as we can instigate boardroom changes via amending the articles if things don’t go as planned/promised. Although other elements of the deal (as you highlight above) are pretty sketchy, I might be willing to suck it and see.

I am pretty much in the same place as you at the moment, but I am starting to come round to the idea. Regarding the part I highlighted above, as 90% shareholders (and with this status now protected going forward), MCT would always have the nuclear option of going ahead and implementing changes to the articles in the future (albeit doing so in the next 12 months might not be wise if it ended up contravening any terms of the sponsorship deal) I think this is fair. The concessions in last nights mail are a big step in the right direction, but they need to happen at the same time as the other proposed changes to the articles - not afterwards.

Knock me down with a feather. It seems like the penny is finally starting to drop (better late than never). From the start this has been my #1 concern, so this does change things for me a bit. I’m still not happy about ceding control of the boardroom and allowing Laird to continue his role without the accountability that comes with being a director. The way this whole situation has been managed also stinks but at this stage I might be prepared to hold my nose and accept this proposal as this at least secures the sponsorship money for another season while protecting us from a Trojan horse takeover.

The hopes & expectations he outlines in this message may well all be true, but if that is the case then he definitely isn’t going about things in the best way. I am totally up for getting investment into the club, improving our governance, and could even be convinced into removing the need to have MCT majority on the board. What I’m not so up for is getting strong armed into a deal that marginalises the owners influence while maintaining the status of people who have a demonstrably poor record in maintaining a “stable and professionally run operation off the park”. Make no mistake, if GMFC, MCT interim board & Dalrada had gone about making this proposal in a different way then I could well be sitting here quite happily accepting it. Sadly, the way information has been leaked by different parties, then selectively released while evading key questions, all while dangling the sword of Damocles over us, I can’t get behind it as things stand.

Many have asked what’s in it for Dalrada and speculated about various motives. I can categorically tell you that the only motive I have is to give something back to a community and club I love. I have no interest in shareholding, or taking over the club, I simply want to help the club succeed and hopefully see us fighting for promotion to the top flight. if this is the case, why are you presenting us with ultimatums on how things must be done (with the threat of withdrawing sponsorship if you don’t get your way)? Wouldn’t it be a better approach to engage with the owners, take on board their concerns, and try to come to an amicable agreement that works for all parties? Alongside that I want to see a stable and professionally run operation off the park and it is clear work needs to be done to achieve this. Why then are you insisting that persons who have failed in their duties running the club must remain in position, while moving to marginalise the owners influence on how the club is run?

From the outset it has felt a bit like the result (and goal) of this vote has been a foregone conclusion, given the way it’s been positioned, the fact that the vote was opened well in advance of the meeting and with critical details not disclosed, and also the risk that many may just take the offer at face value and vote in favour without question. Seeing this uptick in Facebook activity from certain individuals does make me wonder if the votes cast so-far are maybe not going quite as planned, or are at least closer than was hoped/expected (that is, assuming said individuals have access to view the current status of votes cast)

The EGM is on Monday, and I believe the vote will remain open for 48 hours after that (although I am guessing it may close early if enough votes are cast to establish a majority 1 way or another). Based on the communications offered by MCT and the Club of late, I don’t expect clarity on our future direction any time soon. I guess we should all just cough up our season ticket early bird money, pre order the unseen strip then shut up, stop asking questions & let the grown ups take care of things.

Re-reading the FAQs, this one left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth too - The situation of the club is, in comparison to normal business ownership, unusual, where the majority shareholder is not the majority funder. Dalrada are proposing a financial contribution for the season ahead which, in comparison to typical MCT contributions (£150k per season), is a financial ratio of approximately 3.5 x 1 to that of MCT contributions. This is simply not true. Let’s not forget that paying MCT members are also FANS. If we conservatively estimate that only 50% of members will buy a season ticket or attend most home games, this brings the total contribution to well over 300k(before even considering other stuff like merchandise, hospitality & catering). Meanwhile I assume that directors won’t be forking out for season tickets, and it’s been confirmed that our “advisory club chair” can’t even fork out a tenner a month to support MCT. Furthermore, it isn’t even remotely “normal” for a majority shareholder to be the “majority funder” of a business. What does this even mean? Ask any business owner if they “fund” their company and see what they say - I expect that the answer will be that they in fact offer product or a service, and hopefully generates enough income to make some profit at the end. What definitely isn’t normal is having a business owner with no effective decision making power on how said business is run. If Brian wants more say in how the club is run in exchange for his money, then why not come and make a proposal to buy the club?

The question of issuing shares is by far the biggest one for me. If we could get clarification on that then it might be enough for me to hold my nose and accept the other questionable parts of the deal. I have exchanged several emails with Stuart Duncan in regards to the issuing of new shares, and so far all I’ve recieved in response is confirmation that GMFC do not control any of the shares so cannot sell them. So he either didn’t understand the distinction between selling existing shares & issuing new ones, or didn’t want to answer the question. If there's nothing dodgy going on here then the MCT board are missing an open goal here - all that’s needed is a clear answer. The whole thing could be solved by amending articles 27-29 or adding a new one stating that new shares can only be issued with the permission of the majority shareholder.

The FAQs refer to the clubs “lean operating model” as justification for why the 3 skills-based “mutually appointed” persons need to be appointed as directors, and even go on to highlight how “being on the board does bring with it a requirement to ensure that business of the club is being conducted in the right manner” I wonder why the same justification doesn’t apply to John Laird, and why “The board believes his advisory role is the most appropriate structure at this time, allowing him to provide strategic support without assuming formal board responsibilities” It seems almost like the justification given for why the 3 should be on the board is the exact same one given for why Laird shouldn’t be on the board. Very strange indeed

Big unanswered questions for me - 1. Please respond specifically to the question on ISSUING of shares - not transfer/sale of existing ones. What is there in place to prevent GMFC board from issuing new shares (which could lead to dilution of MCT ownership)? 2. You mention in one of your answers that a 3-3 stalemate will not occur because there will be 7 on the board. What happens if a) there is a vote to remove a member (I assume the member in question cannot participate in this vote)? b) there is a vote to replace a member who has already stepped down)? 3. Laird not being on the board because “the board believes this is the most appropriate arrangement” is not a satisfactory answer. Why does the board believe this to be the case? 4. Please advise exactly what (if any) impact there will be on Dalrada contributions if MCT contributions decrease (saying you hope this won’t happen is not an acceptable answer)