[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

40 minutes ago, Hoofballer said:

MCT solely become a cash cow after we let the Trojan Horse into the mix.

If a deal gets pushed through with all the integrity of a presidential election in Belarus, then that cash cow will be running dry very quickly. The interim board either forget - or don't care - about the fact that their temporary period of relevance is incumbent on the goodwill of members stumping up additional and entirely voluntary funds every single month. There is a serious risk that without a change in strategy and greater transparency (see the last five pages or something). then next month's EGM will spell not just the end of fan oversight of the club but also the end of MCT as a serious umbrella organisation.

Quite how that leaves the club in a stronger overall position is anyone's guess.

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

1 hour ago, Hoofballer said:

They have invited questions all, get your questions into them for their official response.

if replies are not forthcoming or timed for ambush prior to or during meeting we shall be able to make judgement on motives of MCT board currently.

While it's both understandable and good that many pertinent questions have already been sent, the second line above is key. Let's not lose sight of the actual power relationship here:

MCT's 'interim board' (shelf life: one week; credibility: zero) are proposing a significant change to the ownership rights that MCT members as a collective body are supposed to exercise within the club. It is entirely the job of the interim board to explain their case to merit majority support - not on MCT members to either pick it apart with questions or to 'come up with a better alternative' (watch that old tactic cropping up).

When this collected set of Q and A points are circulated, MCT members should study not only the content of the answers provided but also the manner in which the issues are addressed. Does the Interim Board recognise your concerns fully? Does it provide as much transparency as can be reasonably expected? Or do they continue to address criticism in a hgih-handed manner, as has been the running tactic for the rest of this month to date?

If so, then you are experiencing a taste of the future relationship not only between MCT members and its initerim board, but between MCT and the new and expanded GMFC board. And you should vote it down.

 

As for anyone backing this proposal at an official GMFC/MCT level right now: If you believe that this all a misrepresentation of your good faith desire to drag the club into the 21st century - then you need to seriously rethink your PR strategy.  Because tactics like spinning in the local newspaper, obstructing entirely relevant motions within an EGM and setting up daft burner accounts on here are not likely to end well in terms of winning support for your proposal.

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

54 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

I’ve set up this petition.  Honestly, I’m not even sure if this is the right thing to do at this stage, but with facts thin on the ground, shambolic communications coming from MCT & more questions than answers, I though this might at least serve as a way of putting a bit of power back in the hands of MCT members without having to wait another 2 weeks.  I won’t be trying to convince anyone to sign it, and feel free to red dot me if you think this isn’t appropriate.  I’m just putting it out there to see if it sinks or swims

https://chng.it/bzcHLsQmm2

Edit - if anyone else thinks they have a better idea and wants to put together their own petition, I will take this down as the last thing we need is different ones competing against each other.  Likewise if i get feedback on here suggesting that most people think the petition is a bad move then i will take it down. 

Well I doubt that the Tele will do some actual journalism for a change, as opposed to their current M.O. of  regurgitating someone else's obvious spin as 'exclusive Telegraph source reveals club in crisis'. 

While I was rarely a fan of his rather generous views at times (see 'McInally, Jim' - also filed under 'incompetence'), this garbage coverage wouldn't have happened back in Roger Graham's day. 

[FIFA Registration Ban]

8 hours ago, Rossco said:

Ban now confirmed as lifted

Good. Now when will GMFC/their attempted Dalrada overlords confirm who will be walking the plank for their administrative failure(s) and pathetic cover-up for at least 6 weeks - dragging the club into disrepute? 

What with them being so concerned to have professional adults running the business and all. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

1 hour ago, irnbru said:

 

Don't really disagree with this but I'm assuming we've no sponsor as a backup, strips are already printed with Dalrada, etc and we'd essentially be going into the season with a tiny budget and limited time to do anything with it. That's going to have a clear impact and probably end up with crowds dropping too so isn't really a good place to be and will have a long term impact. 

Agree with the Dalrada stuff but it's still a bit of certainty for a year at least although the way it's come about isn't great and there's alarm bells there with what happens next. 

It doesn't provide certainty for a year when the backer responsible has failed to provide certainty from month to month in meeting its existing commitments. 

As for the first point, you seem to be assuming that the 'proposal' is the only show in town. If Dalrada are as genuinely committed to community ownership as their most recent public announcements state, then why would rejecting this additional proposal require pulling the plug on existing sponsorship? In what way is it supporting community ownership if you pick up your ball and go home if you don't get everything your own way? What is the inherent issue with maintaining the status quo degree of attachment? 

The last time that a company tried a take it or leave it approach, it was GC trying to take Cappielow as payment for 'our' (their) spending. This was also presented at the time as being in the best interests of the club and with no better offer on the table. It wasn't and a better solution was found. 

That doesn't mean that we should automatically adopt the same stance - it does however mean that we should treat the nature of the proposal itself with scepticism. And if Dalrada aren't for negotiating,  then it's best to have the plug pulled now rather than being £2 million deep into the clutches of an organisation again. Crowd sizes are irrelevant compared to the stakes involved here. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

1 hour ago, irnbru said:

I think there's a lot more clarity needed in terms of what happens next season and what mechanisms MCT will have for taking back control since they are the owners at the end of the day. 

BUT it's a huge amount of money so would be vary wary of just saying no right away. There's obviously risks that things would go wrong if this goes ahead but there's a bigger risk that they go wrong if it doesn't. We'd be left with no sponsor, no money and no squad with a couple of weeks left until pre season starts. It's easy to say we'd still survive but, realistically, no one is going to enjoy what would happen. 

Whether it's all been manufactured to leave us with our backs against the wall is another story, and I don't really like how it's come about and the uncertainty of people involved, but I think we've been left with no choice if we want a decent team. 

Oh well if the alternative is not going to be enjoyable then I guess we can just hand over control of the club to any old charlatan instead. 

• The club would not be "without a squad". 

• The club would also not be "without money".

You should be asking why, if Dalrada were genuinely committed to supporting community ownership and strengthening the club going forward, such a proposal was not set out months ago to be picked over and voted on in an orderly manner that would not have impacted close season preparation. 

The failure of planning rests entirely on those who argue that they are fighting to achieve competent and professional governance. Which is not a good look. 

1 hour ago, gmfc_craig said:

Been said many times but we MUST take out egos, any sour grapes involved and it's all becoming a bit "They said this and they done this". We MUST do what is best for club, whether that's short term or long term. I think am more swaying to voting yes to the deal and forget what has happened before and judge the board(s) from once deal is in place over the next 12 months. 

The short term is absolutely irrelevant if the long term future is in serious jeapordy. Either as the result of a hostile takeover by untrustworthy individuals OR simply becoming dependent on the whims of a 'backer' whose talk has not even been backed up by paying the bills on time this year. 

The second reason in itself is why any proposal to deepen links with Dalrada need to be treated with caution. You are entitled to make your own judgment on the last few weeks' farce, but let's not overlook that factual starting point. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

The term 'flooding the zone' is sometimes used to try and explain the Trump White House's near constant barrage of announcements and briefings since the start of the year, with the claimed purpose being that while the media and opposition are still trying to grasp and/or organise opposition to the last batshit mental scheme, a new one will be dropped to divert attention away. All while the executive branch makes decisions with real-world impacts under very little scrutiny. Now I don't follow US politics closely enough to judge whether that's accurate, but It's certainly the suspicion I have when an enormous update gets dropped on a Saturday teatime. 

Even on a self-contained forum like this, it would take pages and pages of textual analysis to pull apart every single one of different claims being made in that document. Just two I'd like to flag up:

1) How noble of the interim MCT board to deem themselves satisfied that 'Sam' and 'Graham' can continue in their existing posts. Never mind 'Lettuce Liz' Truss' spell in office - I've literally had an open carton of milk sit in the fridge longer than at least one of these interim MCT board members. They have absolutely zero credibility to judge anything right now.

2) So Dalrada are only looking to develop the most professional and competent executive structure at the football club going forward. We can all surely agree on that. So that being the case, it is strange that Dalrada and their assorted flunkeys have refused to either:

i) identify and hold anyone responsible for covering up a transfer embargo behind the first team manager's back - never mind the actual fucking owners of the business, or

ii) account for gleefully running to give a notice letter to an assistant manager 5 minutes after the last home game of the season, noising up the same first team manager and playing squad in the process.

Neither of those decisions smack of professional and competent stewardship, so which of the existing cohort of the chairman, board directors or the GM should be held responsible and leave? Actions speak louder than words - so who is for the chop?

A final point is that this EGM is quite clearly not going to offer the required degree of scrutiny. The last AGM spent the best part of two hours discussing one proposed article change and the white-hot controversy of cashless pie stalls. It would need an effective and respected neutral moderator just to maintain a basic level of coherence this time given the passions stirred up on all sides, and even if that miracle happens barely the surface of this proposal will be covered in time.

Until most of the questions highlighted by the contributors above are addressed then this proposal should not even be up for consideration.

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

59 minutes ago, Deego said:

I have no desire to watch part-time crap guys play football.

As opposed to Niall McGinn and JET?

The question should be whether part time/hybrid football is the best use of the resources that the club currently generates. That should be independent of any outside backing and if the reality of a commercial model still trapped deep in the 20th century is that full-time professional football doesn't stack up, then you address the lack of revenue first. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

4 hours ago, Greacen2000 said:

This is precisely my fear.  The more they delay this being put to MCT membership, the easier it will be for them to present it as a fait accompli - I.e. “this offer is the only show in town, turn it down and we don’t have enough time to line up alternative sponsorship/funding and will need to go part time”.

If that’s what presented to us then not only do we need to reject it, everyone involved in getting us to this point needs emptied for being complicit in the situation.

Another elephant in the room here (assuming Dalrada do want shares in the club) is what happens to the stadium.  My understanding is that Cappielow is owned by a seperate company (GMFC property) which is in turn owned by MCT.  If this offer turns out to include demands on stadium ownership too, that’s a major red flag for me.  Having a say on the running of a club you invest in is one thing, but if it turns out that this also includes moves to control the property business then it will raise another set of questions around dalradas intentions

Couldn't agree more and it's worth stressing that there is no actual fait accompli:

• The biggest outgoing at a football club is the first team wage bill - that's to a significant degree a variable cost. 

• The club has no long-term debt to account for. 

• There should therefore be sufficient room in terms of expired contracts to absorb any loss of revenue from a single sponsor. If not, then GMFC is further mismanaging its resources. 

I frankly couldn't care less at this point about the first team's strength going forward. It should be nowhere near top of the priority list. If this past fortnight is serving as the prelude to a form of bad faith takeover then that has to be rejected first and foremost. For those who may (understandably) disagree with that emphasis - take a look at Hamilton to see what happens when your 'ambitious' first team goals meet the reality of actually signing over your club to a bunch of bad faith chancers. 

I look forward to seeing the details of the proposal, but can't hide the reality that my prejudgement has swung to at least 40-60 against just about any deeper involvement with Dalrada after the past few weeks. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

That's obvious, but unless there are more willing and able replacements ready to step-in, it'll just be like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic

I disagree because there are also structural changes that could be made to increase accountability, regardless of who sits on either board. For example:

1) Each GMFC board meeting should have full minutes recorded for future reference - board directors can scrutinise these before validation and suggest (but not enact) necessary corrections. Even something as basic as using automatic minute recording/summary, then manually correcting any errors is an improvement in terms of scrutiny on the club statement mechanism. 

2. Those minutes should be made available to view upon request by the MCT board as well as any other significant shareholder. For MCT, I would establish this as a routine matter of course - but it should also be open to other non-trivial shareholders too. 

3. A summary of the board minutes - not disclosing any sensitive information, effectively a list of each topic discussed - should then be made available to all stakeholders, including MCT members. 

4. Other change needed: resigning from MCT should lead to a time bar on returning to said board - at least 6 months (possibly over 12) seems reasonable enough. 

These are just some that spring to mind - others with insider knowledge can adapt or suggest different reforms (such as the club chairman).

The point being that the issues are not necessarily down to officeholders being either incompetent or nefarious - we haven't yet built a reliable enough structure for governance and accountability. It was an understandable oversight when the Raes picked up the ball and left quickly - it clearly has to be addressed now. 

[Championship 24/25]

Brian Graham misses a sitter from 0.4 yards out to prevent 'Partick Thistle Family Club' from salvaging a lifeline right at the death. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

2 minutes ago, SassenachTon said:

Understandably - no accounts or spreadsheet has been forthcoming. So no - it's not, unless you choose to provide proof to the contrary. When you do, and when the accounted numbers don't match up to my wildest dreams, you'll receive my profound apologies.

Meanwhile - he onus is on you to identify why we (as an impecunious fitba entity) should suddenly have their finances thrown into apparent chaos courtesy of motive-related conspiracy theories surrounding our principal sponsor.

There are no published accounts for GMFC? Or are you just too lazy to find them? Do you work on the 'journalism' desk for the Greenock Telegraph by any chance? 

You're the one who is claiming that "vast piles of cash" have already been flung at an ungrateful, stupid wee football club by these benevolent white knights - how much are we talking about then? 

The only organisation whose finances have been "in apparent chaos" are in fact the benevolent sponsors who just so happen to drop the ball on making scheduled payments. That's not a conspiracy theory. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

Just now, SassenachTon said:

Can you? Pls post your spreadsheet.

The onus is on you identify what these "vast piles of cash" amount to in practice. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

8 minutes ago, SassenachTon said:

I said it earlier in the thread - but we should be fucking grateful that the Greenock bloke remembered his roots, instead of pandering to some woke 'look at how right-on we are' bullshit donations to earn corporate bownie points and cheap publicity. Aye - they've allegedly been latterly late with some payments - but can you imagine where we'd be without the vast piles of cash they've injected - 

Can you identify how much Dalrada have actually invested in the football club that counts as 'vast piles of cash', without using the Poundland Pulitzer at the Tele's gormless, fact free reporting? 

As for imagining where we would be, the answer is 'dead but for the ongoing capital investment of MCT, which saved the club when a previously 'benevolent', guid Greenock businessman left the club up shit creeek without a paddle. It's indeed a shame that creator of the organisation has felt obliged to resign from both club and MCT positions, presumably (though perhaps not) in response to this pathetic fait accompli unfolding in front of us. I certainly rather he'd be back rather than some of the fucking ghouls hanging around the place now. 

The club was here for 145 years before Dalrada, and it will be on the fanbase to support it long after Dalrada's partnership inevitably ends. So stop treating GMFC like it is some sort of life support wretch being kept alive by the benevolence of others. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

6 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

No, you can't.  But you can put yourself forward for the board, and existing board members can co-opt you to fill any vacancies if there aren't enough elected board members.

Co-opting the exact same folk who literally resigned less than one fucking week ago though is as bent as a thirteen bob bit. 

No replacement directors should be appointed before an EGM and if that means the MCT board grinds to a halt then so be it. Stop fucking resigning every 3 seconds and work together instead.

MCT directors are responsible to its membership and not to either their own or a sponsor's agenda. I'll be actively considering ending my subscription, unless there is an imminent prospect of all the folk implicated in this being held accountable. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

7 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

So yeah, I would hope and expect that if the club's major sponsor walks away because of in-fighting, then the GMFC shareholders and MCT members immediately demand EGMs to vote on the removal from their respective Boards of those deemed to be responsible.

 

 

13 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Really? You're just buying that obvious spin and brinkmanship *so* easily? 

The answer to that remaining 'yes' then. 

Can't think of any other possible reasons why a sponsor with a share price yo-yoing and with a less than pristine track record of keeping their commitments might be looking to shift blame for a partnership ending. But hey the Poundland Pulitzer at the Tele says they're definitely putting up £700k so why bother with some critical thinking? 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Yeah I know, it could of course just be brinkmanship, and it's entirely possible they've just given them a 'deadline' to force their hand. But that's a dangerous assumption to make and I wouldn't want to put it to the test by fannying about and letting it expire without any sort of reaction. So aye, I would buy it just in case they are serious.

I'm not entirely comfortable either with the amount of power and influence they have either, but rightly or wrongly, they could argue they're bought that right. 

Why have you raised GMFC and MCT as the two parties that need 'hounded' for not sorting things out, but not the obvious third party here*?

Do Dalrada's business partners over in Trumpland stick their oar into Dalrada's own boardroom composition, fail to deliver on funding schedules and then (after the latter!) have the brass neck a few months to impose 'deadlines' for settlement? 

It's either a game of ludicrous brinkmanship, or their commitment to community ownership is on seriously dodgy ground. And they've bought no such rights. 

 

 

 

 

*Well them and the Tele, who should be got shot of later for acting as a gormless, unthinking mouthpiece throughout this exercise. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

3 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

If the GMFC and MCT Boards fuck this up because of ego and/or personal resentments and vendettas, both need to be hounded

Really? You're just buying that obvious spin and brinkmanship *so* easily? 

It would be interesting to see Dalrada's view on having a 48 hour, make or break deadline for not furnishing payments on time because reasons. Just curious. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

For this specific issue, I wonder why both sides can't actually agree to have their cake and eat it;

• Let those who Dalrada apparently want on the GMFC board to remain. 

• SO LONG AS GMFC's articles are amended to allow the addition of legit MCT delegates on the board - up to the 50% as was intended. 

• Clarify the responsibilities of MCT delegates to the GMFC board - as an internal issue for MCT, with no scope for anyone else sticking their oar in.

There would still of course be some tensions and noses out of joint, but  expanding the GMFC board is a pragmatic alternative to this War of the Roses style stand-off (apparent to the outside at least), at a critical time in the club's future planning. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

22 hours ago, HamCam said:

Most people who invest money want an element of control. This is the challenge for MCT as the majority shareholder in the club. For whatever reason/s there has been a breakdown in relationship between Dalrada and MCT - the chances are both are at fault. Unless there is a whit knight out there with money to burn GMFC need Dalrada if we want to continue as a full-time club competing in the Championship.

As for the Easdales they have never hidden their club is Rangers - I am sure in the recent past Sandy increased his stake in the newco.

We are a mess just now and while I retain my reservations over fan ownership I just do not see any other show in town.

For investors to have a right to some control, they need to buy a shareholding stake. A sponsorship does not by itself confer the same right. If we wanted to consider the arguments made by a sponsor about the club board composition, then IMO that should require approval by the MCT membership. This has not been on the agenda though. 

About the final point (and the wider discussion too), there's nothing to say that MCT's shareholding must stay at 90% of the club. There was a previous approach from an undisclosed party to invest in GMFC - but as soon as the membership pushed back with even the slightest conditions for transparency, sucj interest vanished without trace. Which leads me to conclude that we were well rid. 

I'd view a partnership in which MCT has around 50-50 of the club shares alongside private investors (on the board too) as the best of both worlds. But the investors need to be serious about respecting both the ownership rights and the ongoing capital investment that MCT delivers to the club (i.e. recognising share buyback rights or part-ownership of any new infrastructure developed). It is not a stupid wee charity case that private investors get to ignore whenever they feel like it. 

[Commercial Activity]

4 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

I completely agree about the lack of help at the turnstiles. Both in organising queues and also with quickly helping people through the turnstiles. I don't think the club does nearly enough in communicating with people attending games about when it wants them to start arriving or how to scan tickets efficiently. 

Obviously a simple solution to this would be opening more turnstiles, but the lack of efficiency around the current system bugs me. If they don't want to do the necessary organisation to make the current system work, then open more turnstiles. 

Maybe club directors should take turns at helping fans scan their tickets at the turnstiles...

I really don't see lack of efficiency as the main problem - it's a lack of realism.

Iron Man IIRC claimed that each white elephant turnstile would be whizzing through 4 (possibly 6?) punters per minute. That was always a pig in a poke sold to the club by the Scouse shyster.

1) A football crowd is like herding cats - you just aren't getting 100% attention and preparation for the big scanner test at the end (similar to yapping wifies in a supermarket queue just realising that their purse is in their handbag )

2) The QR code scanners we have installed require a particular size and particular angle to read the code and process entry. But about 3 seconds after we installed them, mobile tickets - with different zoom options, brightness settings etc. rendered this pernicketyness a serious obstacle. I haven't encountered a QR scanner as inefficient as Morton’s turnstiles anywhere. 

Those are two practical issues, but the third is that the sums overall don't stack up. Even at optimal speed and efficiency, 4 turnstiles were never going to process both the Sinclair Street and Cowshed crowd in good time and order, for anything other than the most anaemic, struggling to hit 1,000 crowds. There's a reason why there were so many more manual turnstiles both installed and operational before, and it wasn't just a legacy of the occasional huge crowd. 

[Championship 24/25]

Let's bear in mind* that this was the sane football club who claimed that increased pie sales were single-handedly balancing their gormless promotion push last season too. 

 

 

 

 

*point and laugh

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

2 hours ago, SassenachTon said:

I also agree that hounding Dalrada is completely unfair. They’ve pumped a shiteload of money into Morton, and I can’t think how they could possibly have been any more supportive. 

A: By recognising that when representatives of MCT - not Dalrada - are seen to be not fulfilling their brief, that they have no business intervening to influence that internal MCT process. Regardless of whether the representatives involved are 'trusted' club board members (why would any replacements be inherently untrustworthy?) or just big mates with Dalrada's executives. 

They and other parties have a right to respond and clarify the situation, but  there is a clear issue raised by MCT's version of events about staying in their lane. If you want to argue that it's worth accepting such a compromise then feel free to do so, but let's not pretend that the claimed events outlined are in fact a prime example of supporting community ownership. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

7 hours ago, irnbru said:

Nah, don't really agree with it but think that would be the reason. 

And, probably importantly, if we're aware of these relationships then MCT should have been and maybe took another approach to avoid the risk of losing the money. 

What would that 'other approach' be exactly?

There should be further clarification from those involved, but the perceived breakdown between the activity of MCT reps on the club board and the actual ownership body is hardly a new one. It was being raised in a typical cloak and dagger fashion at the last MCT AGM for example, possibly further back as well. 

[Developing MCT/GMFC Board Situation]

Some further ranting (tl;dr above). 

The common thread among the leaked claims (evidently now from one faction in this farce) is the argument that Dalrada are essential to the club's financial survival. That's a distortion based on the figures available in the public domain, because football clubs do in fact still operate on a less than full-time basis.

The Tele is disgracing itself yet again by reporting otherwise - either because their 'journalist' doesn't understand or is too lazy to grasp basic financial books, before jeopardising a business's credit reputation in the public domain based on unnamed 'sources'. If it weren't for the total binfire behind the scenes, I'd be showing either that organisation or the individual journalist the door for some time to come. 

Now if our recently stood down Finance Director - leaving as scheduled AFAIK - offered a counter argument about the club's actual financial viability then I'd be minded to reconsider that view. That's someone whose track record in achieving break even and profits lends authority to their judgments. But I'm certainly not buying such claims from some of the time-honoured headbangers that @TONofmemories has rightly identified at the centre of this farce, whose credibility is non-existent.