Alibi

Yes, it's looking that way for me.

I don't generally abstain on anything, but this seems to be a situation where there is no currently available option for which to vote. Yes risks the club being stolen from us; No possibly risks financial problems although mitigation might be possible. And the overarching thing is that we're being asked to vote blindfolded. Although I suggested abstention as a possible strategy, what I'm really looking for is a "none of the above" option that forces those involved to think again, go away and negotiate and come up with a better arrangement. This debate doesn't really have a quantum anwer; it needs a more finessed solution and it needs a proper open debate. It is ridiculous to be having a vote when nobody knows what we are actually voting for.. Regarding the chairman, I know almost nothing about him. How did he attain his position? Who voted him in, if anyone? Or did he just seize power when nobody was looking? Alarm bells ringing. At the moment I certainly can't vote Yes in this rigged election. It's too risky IMHO.

It is impossible to cast an informed vote when we are being kept in the dark. Perhaps the tactic should be to abstain - if a huge proportion of those eligible to vote were to abstain, it would send the clear message that we don't know because nobody will give an honest answer to any of the many questions. Genuine questions - who selected the folk who form the GMFC board? Why were the owners of the club (MCT) not asked to vote in board elections for the club board as opposed to the MCT board? Why is John Laird chairman of GMFC? And why does he avoid scrutiny and SFA approval? As a shareholder as well as an MCT member, I think he should resign his position or be removed because I don't think his interests necessarily coincide with the interests of the club.

Giving up control in that manner would be criminally negligent after all the shenanigans to achieving fan ownership. For me, tht would be a red line.

Yes, not suspicious at all.

It is ridiculous to ask us to vote on this proposal at such short notice when the whole thing is clouded in ifs and buts. The one thing that stands out for me is Gordon Ritchie's opinion of John Laird. That is a huge red flag - a chairman who won't join the board as it would mean being vetted by the SFA? Wow! That is excoriating. Hugh Scott levels of excoriating. Perhaps MCT should come back and recommend acceptance of Brian Bonar's offer but on condition that John Laird departs the scene. I tend to think Mr Bonar's heart is in the right place, a Morton fan who wants to help the club - that's my Euromillions fantasy writ large - but this John Laird character, who I know nothing about personally, maybe needs to consider his position.

It would be daft to let anyone take a majority stake in the club. If that's what Dalrada want, they need to be told to get to fuck. We are fan-owned and we need to keep it that way. Naming rights to the stadium is fine as a fundraiser but the ownership of the club should not be up for discussion. Otherwise John Laird will be chairman for life.

There's no harm in talking to Dalrada but I would assume that any offer would need to be put to the MCT membership at some point. If this is an attempt at a backdoor takeover, they can go fuck themselves.

Not sure who is trying to steal owndership of the club from the fans, but things are clearly out of control. All we need is for Hugh Scott to step out the shadows and we'll have come full circle. Who appointed the GMFC board? I'm getting the impression it's full of parasites and we're paying for their free lunches. We need a clearout.

I really cannot follow what the fuck is going on. I have very little interest in matters of corporate structure but if the fans own Morton FC, why is the entrire Morton board not elected directly by the fans? For example who appointed Laird as the chairman? I don't remember ever being asked for my opinion on that.

Sounds like some sort of administrative omission that is getting sorted. Not clear if it's Morton's fault or the fault of some football administrator, but it seems to be getting sorted before the transer window opens.

These guys should be dealt with severely, and any others who carry weapons. Football doesn’t need this sort of thing taking a hold.

Never go that far up the page tbh, just hit the wee star icons to get to the first unread post. This forum is a nightmare to read, swamped with ads popping up for about ten minutes after you load it and at regular intervals as each post loads.

There was a post about it on here somewhere about a week ago. Not sure which thread - is there a search facility on here? If it's nonsense, I'll be delighted as we might get to keep Keay at the club while he matures and improves. I know if he succeeeds he would want to get a move and that's inevitable, but it would be a bit galling to lose a good player so early in his career. I could understand it if he was off to Barca, but signing for Partick or St Mirren or whoever would be a real kick in the teeth. However money talks and if he has an agent, that agent will be looking to earn commission. I hope there's nothing in the story.

If Keay is actually off at the end of the season I don't think giving him game time makes sense unless there is a genuine benefit to the club (like better results and maybe 5th place rather than 6th. However on a related matter, it was suggested that his agent was trying to get him flogged. If Morton are really just going to let what looks like a really good player walk away without even offering him a professional deal, there's something very wrong at the club. Surely championship level football would bring him on and improve him greatly as a footballer? Is the agent just trying to earn commission? And does our club chairman not act as a player agent? If so, is he involved in any way with this particular player? If so, it would be a clear conflict of interest and in my opinion a resigning matter.