capitanus

You were trying to imply that I was some kind of cheapskate for not participating in a scheme which I think is very poorly thought through. There is even some very serious flaws with this scheme which haven't even been covered yet, which at best can be described as misleading but at worst fraudulent, and could potentially sink the scheme before it even starts. I would be more than willing to commit to the right scheme, this isn't it. I'm entitled to my opinion even if you don't like it.

I am. However just not for this hairbrained effort. Thanks for playing anyway, champ.

I'd rather be cynical than let some of the people who were behind the GMST's failings get a free ride with my money.

Charlton have some previous for denying Sunderland promotion.

VikingTON was quick to point out early doors that the 'I know something that you don't know' clique were all over this on social media before the half-baked hairbrained idea was announced to the world via the Daily Record. With this in mind, I think that it's fair to say that some of those individuals, if not all, have some involvement in this 'scheme'.

'MCT ask me anything' doesn't imply you'll get an answer. This 'Leadership Team' was helluva quick at getting itself established though, wasn't it?

What you said below implies that I did say this: Funnily enough, I thing that the MCT is making this up as he/they are going along. I don't think that Peanut McNeil, Andy Ritchie and all these chain-smoking 'legends' from yesteryear understand this scheme/idea/pipedream any more than anyone else, perhaps even less so, therefore considering this should they be telling others what to do?

Yes he is the Health & Safety Officer. He has a Hat Hard on.

No doubt. I wouldn't bet against some of the usual suspects being part of the 'leadership' team.

Hayfever, please read the bit in bold below: Now where have I said that people shouldn't invest in this hairbrained scheme?

To say anyone is being 'sensitive' is a bit spurious, isn't it? Also, there are a few drum-bangers out there for this scheme already, telling people to get behind it when it currently has more questions than there are answers.

Everyone can do as they please as far as this is concerned. It's not one for me, but anything that is aimed at doing good for Morton will get my best wishes, regardless of whether or not it has a less convincing case than an Asylum Seeker from Pakistan. What I think is very patronising is people telling others to get behind this idea. Everyone should think for themselves, and nobody needs Andy Ritchie, Alan McGraw or Stuart Duncan to tell them what to do with their money.

Who, Salty and ToM?

See below. Stick to laughing at Salty, it will at least save you a few quid.

I haven't even started on the percentages or valuations yet, Gordon. I have never implied that Graham McLennan has anything other than good intentions nor have I implied that I suspect he is a dishonest person in any way, however I have stated that this idea is hairbrained on more than one occasion. In the same respect, I do not doubt for a second that Robert Thomson is a person of good character and full of great intentions when he runs on the park, however the consensus is that he is not good enough. Get rid. This idea is simply not good enough. To be put bluntly, Morton's supporters deserve better, especially if you are asking them to part with their hard earned cash. It should have been planned and thought through a lot more thoroughly before going public with the idea. The Daily Record should have been amongst the last to know, instead of the ordinary punters.

I expect something a bit better than this hairbrained effort. 'ivry buddy chip in munny furra' ton' with the endorsement of a gurning Andy Ritchie is what this effectively amounts to.

Is he? As I said previously, it's hairbrained. I will never make Stuart Duncans Christmas Card list anytime soon, but to his credit he was way more organized and had a lot more thought put into the idea of a supporters trust, and this was almost 20 years earlier when such organizations were in their infancy.

Were you ever a member of the GMST? There is a better alternative out there - it goes along the lines of the Rae family selling part of their shareholding to individual investors and the supporters become shareholders in the club that way. We don't need to pledge or subscribe to an organization which is still at it embryonic stages to have them own the shares which we'd be paying for. We already have a fans collective - it's called the GMST.

A few hundred pound each, plus the likelihood that a better idea in the future may fail as supporters would be less likely to back it.

In other words, a crap idea is better than no idea?

Brian raised a very good question which I cannot see an answer.

Isn't that an extremely short-termist objective? What happens if, God forbid, the investment in the first team is squandered on shite players? What then? Your hairbrained idea of 'ivry buddy chips in munny' then dies on its arse. For all their faults, the GMST were head and shoulders above in terms of the thought behind their organisation and what they were aiming to achieve. Their objective was to acquire a substantial shareholding to enable the supporters to have a stake and a say in how things were run at Morton. Granted that both Jim McColl and Stuart Duncan were very ineffective at holding DDFR to account and were unable to prevent reckless spending/borrowing or the Debt-for-equity swap which almost wiped out GMST's once substantial shareholdings, however that is as a result of failings of individuals rather than their initial idea being a failure. In other words, you're not sure. Morton already have a supporters trust, jut like these Hibs and St.Mirren 'supporters groups' which you have mentioned. The GMST is regulated by the industrial and provident societies act and the concept of a Morton supporters trust remains a good idea, despite the failings of previous office bearers within the organisation. I can't help but think you are looking to reinvent the wheel here. In other words, you're not sure. Already an Us/them scenario is developing with this scheme with your 'Leadership Team'. Is this 'legal expert' working on this pro bono? He's looking into a helluva lot of things. The GMST was far better organised than this. It had clear objectives from the outset. The people organising the GMST may have had fall-outs etc. at the bitter end but it was far more superior to this hairbrained 'ivry buddy chips in munny' idea which seems more about allowing the owners of the club to abdicate their responsibilities than it does about giving the supporters a say in how things are run at Morton. That's my final thoughts on this idea - it's hairbrained. You don't seem to have a clue.

Why is there a need for 'Morton Club Together'? Why not join the GMST instead, which is/was basically the same idea?

Do any of these 'celebrity' ex-Morton players who have publicly voiced their support for the MCT know or understand much more about this scheme/idea/proposal/organisation than the rest of us? Edit to add: The one that springs to mind is this one: https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/17641196.morton-legends-throw-their-weight-behind-an-ambitious-fan-ownership-bid/ For those who remember him playing, he is a much loved and revered person, but to take him at face value he comes across as clueless, and not the kind of person to be dispensing advice on what Morton supporters should or shouldn't do with their hard earned cash.

In the event that a person chooses to pledge an amount of money to the MCT group, what would be the primary objective of the fundraising? In the event that the MCT group acquires shares in the club, who will be the legal owners of the shares? Will this be the person(s) who pledged funds to the MCT, or would it be the MCT themselves? If so, what form will this take? In the event that MCT become the legal owners of an equitable stake in Morton FC as a result of funds raised via pledges, will those pledging monies become shareholders or stakeholders in MCT? If so, what form will this take? Who will be the person legally responsible and liable for MCT? Will they be elected? What type of legal entity will Morton Club Together take the form of? In the event of a person(s) who are unhappy with MCT at a later date, for whatever reason, can they take their money back? This is an important point as several GMST 'loan note' holders have expressed unhappiness in recent times. What differentiates MCT from GMST? Isn't it the same thing rebranded?