9 Strathblane Crescent
-
Posts
1185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 9 Strathblane Crescent
-
-
18 hours ago, Nornirontons said:
1 theory I would suggest is the bigger picture which any business savvy investor probably would. I'm aware there is a glass half empty view on this which VT has already posted but let's look at it from a glass half full point of view.
A potential investor in MCT may look at this as a way of getting a foot under the table to be part of a process that could end up MCT in some guise buying the ground at an under market value price. I'm not talking a massive saving but if an investor was to come up with the money it is possible.
So investing what may be pocket money to them in MCT anonymously would in the short term over a few years...possibly look quite attractive if you are looking at a bigger goal on the horizon...investors always do and it would certainly make MCT a more attractive proposition overall.
I remember reading something about MCT and the ground being purchased. I'm sure it was asked and answered at some stage in the process but tbf the details of the reply are a bit vague in my memory tbh.
I bet someone can shed some light on those details and what was said right enough.
This is just a theory but not improbable if you actually do look at potential outcomes....and yes I'm aware it's not just as simple as how I've framed it btw but thought I'd put it out there.
I'm not sure how you get from "a potential investor in MCT" to "buying the ground at an under market value price". You can't "invest" in MCT it's a membership organisation based on one man one vote. You can donate money through your membership contributions but you can't invest. The members of MCT own GMFC Property Ltd and unless persuaded otherwise wouldn't sell the ground "at an under market value price" because once the ground is gone that really would be the end.
-
13 hours ago, TONofmemories said:
You had the perfect chance to implement change, Stuart, but opted to throw toys out the pram and leave in a huff didn't you
Maybe you should talk to Stuart rather than speculate on why he left.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, dunning1874 said:
There has been (mostly in the squad thread rather than this) a colossal amount of speculative shite throughout this summer and especially in the last two weeks. If we're going to pass judgements on MCT I would rather we were doing it on the basis of facts instead of bullshit conjecture about investors mandating team selections or guesswork about budgets, so on that note let's actually deal with the one pertinent factual point at hand.
There is a very important discussion to be had around the whole issue of resigning from MCT board but still being on GMFC board. Of course in practice anyone who does so is still considered an MCT representative, but it should really be codified somehow in the MCT articles how this works in terms of the MCT majority on the board. Where's the democratic accountability, and what's in place within the articles to stop someone declaring themselves an MCT representative on the board because they've happened to have bought a membership or have been on the MCT board in the past, and now have aims contrary to the MCT board or membership as a whole?
For example, and I'm well aware this is a melodramatic scenario, someone could be voted onto the MCT board, join the GMFC board with the best of intentions, leave the MCT board as a matter of course without resubmitting themselves for MCT re-election, and evidently going by the positions of Graham Barr, Gordon Ritchie and Stewart Farmer, be considered an MCT representative on the board. Now this is no aspersion being cast on any of those three individuals, however without any sort of specific point within the MCT articles to address this, if it's as simple as 'you were once co-opted onto the board as an MCT representative, hence you are always part of the MCT majoirty on the GMFC board' there is nothing to stop someone who used to be on the MCT board, has remained on the GMFC board and since became employed by the outside investor voting in favour of said outside investor and becoming their de facto representative, even when no MCT member actually votes in favour of this.
That's a very extreme scenario, but it is nevertheless possible. I get that things moved far faster than MCT expected from an investment vehicle taking a stake in the club to actually owning the club and therefore the articles did not evolve the way they should have if a fan ownership organisation had been the plan from the start. There's a whole minefield to navigate there and my raising this is not a dig at anyone who is in a leadership position. The fact is though that as rank and file members of MCT we have absolutely no power to declare a lack of confidence in board members of MCT, never mind GMFC.
So if GMFC board members, who let's not forget are only there because fans' money put them there, are unaccountable to the MCT board never mind membership, how the hell do we actually have any power whatsoever in practice?
Good post but that's only scratching the surface of what needs to change. Many folk on here have concerns about how the club is being run and need answers. What happened to being "open and transparent" when even the board of MCT are being kept in the dark by the board of GMFC. Not always seen eye to eye with Capitanus but his 'Ivry buddy chips in munny' and don't look for answers looks like an ongoing trend.
-
3
-
-
On 11/14/2021 at 2:12 PM, Cet Homme Charmant said:
I noticed in this Inverclyde Now article that Lesley Ann has taken up a role with a new start-up company, which she will perform 'alongside her current role as commercial manager with Greenock Morton Football Club'. So as well as a part-time General Manager, we also have a part-time Commercial Manager. We really are tinpot.
https://www.inverclydenow.com/new-outdoor-advertising-business-launches-in-inverclyde/
PS - Good luck to Lesley Ann in her new role.
Missed the original post.
-
Anyone else think we are about to lose our commercial manager if this venture takes off?
https://www.inverclydenow.com/new-outdoor-advertising-business-launches-in-inverclyde/
-
Anyone looking at the accounts of Morton will quickly realise that the club has failed to make a profit or break even in all but one season in the last 20 years. If you think MCT can turn that around quickly you're not operating in the real world.
The club do need the money from MCT members to keep going until such time they get their act together and find other ways to generate revenue. How long that will take nobody knows, worryingly MCT don't appear to know either and the members will only give the current board a limited time to get it right.
The quicker we make the changes at Cappielow that are required the better for all our sakes.
-
On 11/11/2021 at 9:57 AM, HamCam said:
For an organisation intending to move on from the past MCT continue to operate much as before under the Raes. The promised communication and transparency appear to be only on their terms and the understanding no-one has the temerity to ask any difficult or unwanted questions. The decision-making process behind the Lithgow issue and the two-year 'stability' management contracts could and should have been dealt with so much better. Putting your head in the sand is not an effective strategy.
MCT rightly gained credit for buying out the Raes but much like previous fan involvement in the club it appears to be turning in on itself. I never bought in to MCT but do pay the monthly sums for my two boys. The intention was to join through the positive actions of MCT but, to date, I am not persuaded rather leaning towards stopping the contributions.
That will sound the death knell of the club. If people do that the club will quickly go into administration and eventually liquidation.
-
On 11/4/2021 at 9:35 PM, vikingTON said:
We've literally just witnessed a summer in which the club gave out both fresh and multi-year deals all round, off the back of the 'success' of staying in the league through the play-offs. The abject failure that led to us competing in the play-offs was completely overlooked: if we end up finishing 8th, the club will be wanting a town hall reception.
The incentives are not there for the people running GMFC to do anything other than try to kick the can down the road for another year, point to 'aye but the Championship prize money!' and hope that the manager will do them a slightly less shite turn with the same setup. Only relegation will deliver the reality check needed to force the long overdue rethink of how this football club should operate.
* The critical fact that the vast majority of the clubs you are directly competing against get access to more prize money after finishing higher in the league the previous season is never taken into account. Raith for example enjoyed well over a £100k headstart on GMFC in building their 21-22 squad.
Don't agree, there are people within MCT who know we need big changes but like all change it takes time, effort and commitment.
-
4 hours ago, AyrshireTon said:
Wasn’t sure which thread to mention this in, but those Easdale chaps are trying to buy Derby County,
Did make an offer to take Morton off of Crawford Rae's hands but wanted Golden Casket as part of the deal.
-
6 hours ago, vikingTON said:
1) There were plenty of external people willing to take on the role of sitting on the GMFC board before. Some of the MCT leadership also came out of the woodwork sharpish once a spot in the comfy seats and bragging rights at the golf club appeared on the horizon. There was no shortage of candidates for the last election so the idea that only the current leadership group would possibly want to do the job is not supported by any facts.
As for the 'what football experience do you have' - that's why a chief criticism of the current GMFC/MCT mindmerge is 'not bringing in relevant expertise for football affairs'. None of the current leadership team have any credible football experience either: which is not an issue, if you understand how to delegate authority to someone who does. Letting the accountants and lawyers decide who gets to be the manager has already driven us into a completely avoidable ditch after about 0.3 seconds in the hotseat.
Learn lessons or be replaced. That's how accountability and fan ownership should work.
2) John Hughes' levels of pashun are not alone sufficient to qualify someone to run a professional football team. This is not a social club.
3) The huge flaw with your argument is that the Scottish national leagues are no longer a closed shop. Morton can not bump around shamefully at the bottom of a pile of utter permadiddy outfits as the club did in the early 1960s. If it does so again, it will now find itself in the Lowland and ultimately West of Scotland leagues playing 'Broomhill' and 'Caledonian Braves' at the equivalent of Parklea every other week. Which would mean the death of any meaningful football club in this community.
Where I agree with your argument is that we should not be as obsessed as we have been recently about avoiding relegation and preserving this nick of a 'Championship status'. Circling the drain and being too afraid to make meaningful change is the quickest way to killing enthusiasm for this fan ownership idea. A spell in the league below is in my view essential to rebuilding and restructuring on a sounder footing than this ad hoc, just get 40 points and we're fine approach, but that restructure still needs to happen. It is a case of adapt or die now in SPFL football.
I agree with this, but why do we have to wait until we are relegated to do the rebuilding and restructuring. Surely we can do both whether we manage to stay up or not?
-
On 11/1/2021 at 10:43 PM, Admin said:
Dean, Craig and Alan (who was plagued with a few tech glitches) give their verdict on both Morton's draws against Partick and Hamilton, discuss Gus MacPherson's future (again...), as well as their in-depth analysis of Morton's Q+A video that was released last week.
Don't always agree with some of the comments but then that's football. But I thought the discussion around the Q&A and MCT was spot on. Anyone I have spoken to are all of the same opinion and all have brought up the same concerns. I have no doubt there are folks within the MCT leadership team who share those concerns and are trying to have them resolved asap. MCT need to sort out their house as a matter of urgency I would say, maybe controversially, before we fix things on the park. What happens off the park affects what happens on the park and right now off the park looks as bad or maybe even worse than what's on the park. Someone in MCT needs to step up to the mark and sort both MCT and GMFC out. Some folks may say that that is Graham McLennan's job but the guy has his own personal issues to deal with and somebody else needs to man up and take control in the meantime or else this adventure is going to fall flat on it's face.
-
1
-
-
I have a question for MCT. Why is Crawford Rae listed as a director of GMFC Property Ltd?
-
11 hours ago, capitanus said:
I'm sure i'm not the only one who understood none of that.
There are no shortage of 'members' who have voiced their unhappiness on here about things at both MCT and GMFC, but they don't seem to be empowered to be able to change things. However the small group of people from MCT who have been appointed to the board of GMFC have acted as though they have 'carte blanche to do as they please' on several occasions now, whilst not condescending to explain controversial decisions like awarding a two year fixed term contract to an interim management team, or worse still, signing a convicted sex offender against the wishes of a sizeable amount of the support.
Any supporter who thinks it is some fan-owned democracy that they are contributing to right now is seriously deluded. Our club has been taken over by a clique of strangers who have hoodwinked the supporters into bankrolling them.
There is an easy answer to that. If you don't like who's in control and running things vote them out of office. That's how it works. But I shall point out one thing where you do have it right. There is no provision in the Articles of Association (Rules) for the members to call a Special General Meeting which in my opinion is an oversight.
-
23 hours ago, capitanus said:
Wrong.
In this case, MCT are the shareholders of the club and the 'members' are merely the people funding MCT.
MCT do not have carte blanche to do as they please. The use of the word "merely" implies that the members have no control which is far from the truth. MCT have freedom to make decisions on a day to day basis but control ultimately lies with its members. That's why you have Rules and Articles of Association.
-
There's a lot covered in this topic but one thing sticks out for me is that there is a lot the club should be doing that they are not. That's all down to roles and responsibilities which we don't appear to have given some of the points made.
Directors of the football club need to have specific roles and not just be seat warmers at games and meetings. That way they can be held accountable and this gives members a better idea who they should have running the club. The same goes for MCT.
-
On 10/20/2021 at 2:28 PM, Toby said:
Because with this format, Gordon Ritchie won’t have to answer questions he doesn't want to answer from mischief makers in the support who are no more than background noise to him running his football club, rather than contributors who have helped him get into the position he now occupies.
I've missed this Gordon Ritchie stooshie. What are his supposed misdemeaners?
-
18 hours ago, capitanus said:
Gus McPherson has a proven track record of managing at this level, and his achievements in the game are respectable. He may not be a universally popular choice, but a case can at least be argued for him. However, they set a very low bar by recruiting a convicted sex offender.
Edit to add: This has happened without our permission. They will do anything other than acknowledge that one.
It's fan owned not fan run. You'll want to have a poll to see who plays on Saturday.
-
18 minutes ago, MCT Team said:
Got an answer for you which you can see below that hopefully explains everything you've asked.
The new company structure consists of three linked limited companies. A limited company is treated as a separate legal entity, and so although the three companies are linked, they are still three separate bodies.
The parent company is MCT Ltd - the same company that members have been contributing to. There is now a new mid-level limited company, which owns the stadium. This property company is 100% owned by MCT. The third company is Greenock Morton Football Club Ltd. That company owns the SFA and League registration and membership.
Under this system, if the football club runs into financial difficulties, any creditors or administrator cannot get their hands on the stadium, as it is not an asset of the club.
As a result, GMFC Ltd no longer owns Cappielow. However, it did not (from a practical point of view) own Cappielow before the takeover. At that point, although the club held title to the stadium, there were securities in place for the club debts which meant that, effectively, Golden Casket controlled the stadium. Currently, the stadium is owned by the membership of MCT.
The value of the remaining 10% of shares in Morton should not be significantly affected by the deal. It is true that they no longer own a share of Cappielow, but the write off of club debts is equal to or greater than the value of the stadium. As a result, the club’s balance sheet will have lost approx £2m in debt from one side and a £2m asset from the other. The overall value of the club has probably increased slightly (a £2m debt never looks good on a balance sheet), but the value of each share is so small that in practical terms there should be no real difference to the value of each share.
It is our intention to provide existing shareholders in the club with a full written resolution of the movements at the club as soon as we receive it from our solicitors. We anticipate that this will be circulated within the next few weeks.
Thanks for that, I'm assuming that in time that Companies House will be updated with all the relevant detail concerning the three companies?
-
Can someone from MCT explain what the ownership of club and ground now looks like under the new agreement? If the ground has been protected under this new agreement if, god forbid, the club runs into financial difficulty how does that work from a legal standpoint?
Is the ground being held by a separate company or does ownership of the ground now fall to MCT?
If so have we effectively separated the ground from the football club i.e. GMFC no longer own Cappielow?
That being the case does this dilute the value of shares in Morton Football Club given it no longer owns its only asset, its only worth being its registration with the SFA?
If the above is correct then it would be incumbent of someone to explain this to the 10% of GMFC shareholders who have been kept pretty much in the dark and should be approached to join MCT which would be to their benefit.
-
1 hour ago, LargsTON said:
Ill be honest. The only way I fear MCT will take us is on a continual downward spiral. I've zero faith in the fan ownership model at this level therefore I'm completely underwhelmed. I'll happily invest if I start seeing signs of progress but I won't hold my breath based on early evidence.
I'm sure you're not alone in having doubts. But if we all followed your lead and never joined then we would almost certainly be on a downward spiral. The more people who join the better chance there is of MCT making a success of Morton and making progress. That has to be one of MCTs major challenges to get more people to take a leap of faith and sign up.
-
2 hours ago, MCT Team said:
They'll be things other clubs do or have done in the past that we can take for ourselves and they'll be things that clubs have never done before that we can hopefully try that tick a few boxes for us towards our overall aims. We'll get some things wrong and we'll try some things that won't work, not everything will be perfect all of the time.
What are these "things" and when are we going to see them in action? It's alright talking about what you would do but until people see these "things" in action then we are not that much further forward. You have an army of volunteers, so I'm told, time to put them to some use and get these "things" up and running where possible. Fans want to see action and uncommitted fans still need to be convinced that MCT are going to make a difference compared to how the club has been run in the past. A lot are frustrated that not a lot appears to have changed, you need to change that perception if your to attract new members and lapsed fans.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, MCT Team said:
How these relationships will work in practice going forward is one of the key areas we'd like to make sure fans are aware of in the coming weeks and months.
The club board is responsible for club matters, of course. I'm sure there will be more comms from the club on this soon and as mentioned at our AGM, there's certainly a desire to hold a GMFC AGM. The principle of fan owned but not fan run remains, the hiring of Chris Ross as General Manager was key to this point. He carries out his role in overseeing club operations on a daily basis, managing staff, overseeing ticketing and hospitality, setting standards and putting processes in place to improve every aspect of the club. The GMFC board set out the overall vision and make decisions on some of these points of course, but don't carry out the tasks that align under all of it. While there's been a need for some individuals at board level to get more involved across some things over the past few months, that need isn't and shouldn't be there now that the GM has his feet under the table. Hopefully that makes sense but happy to try and clarify any further points.
Yes there's a crossover in individuals across the GMFC and MCT boards, but they do remain separate entities with some differing aims, albeit some are also similar.
When the takeover happens, MCT's goal does change somewhat, but not massively. We're still the vehicle for fans to pay monthly to contribute to the club, that has to remain. We'll still be encouraging as many Morton fans to become members and actually it's my desire to do even more on that than we've been doing recently. With the MCT majority on the GMFC club board, the overall vision for the club going forward should have a very MCT feel to it, with focuses driven by the work we've done over the past few years. We want to get even closer to the fanbase than ever before, we want to ensure the club is run in a financially viable manner, with good governance and structures in place, we want to drive as much commercial revenue as possible, we want to build deeper connections with the local community, celebrating the work that Morton in the Community do along with our youth and women's teams, we want to ensure our membership's views and ideas are heard, discussed and then implemented if they make sense to do so.
That's just a flavour of things, and like I said, there's some crossover between MCT and the club there, but everyone working together and pulling towards the same goals can only be a good thing going forward to make sure the club we all love is a success on and off the pitch.
These are all good points you make but I'm more interested on how you intend to make these aims happen. It's all very well having these ideals but how do you intend putting them into practice. We need to increase our fanbase, how do you intend making that happen? We need to increase our revenue, how do you intend making that happen. What measurements will you put in place to judge whether the actions you take are successful? I'm not being negative here I just want to see the club being more successful year on year. Just as an aside ever thought of having a sponsors day at Cappielow where a company that already advertises at Cappielow can set up a stall, for example, to advertise their products and give out information straight to those interested fans as they enter the ground? That of course should include MCT. No harm in having a "sign up here drive" to try and increase membership.
-
Can someone explain to me how the division of responsibilities between the club, GMFC, and the owners MCT actually works in practice. Who is responsible for what? When MCT eventually take over what is the role of MCT? As we now have the majority of GMFC directors MCT directors does this not conflict with the fan owned not run principle?
-
Can anyone from MCT tell me what taking "MCT into the next phase and beyond" will encompass?
Morton Club Together Updates
in General Morton Chatter
Posted
Under NO circumstances should people who are not directors of MCT be directors of GMFC Property Ltd. Both Gordon Ritchie and Stewart Farmer should resign from GMFC Property Ltd and be replaced by ALL the directors of MCT. NEVER should the people who are directors of GMFC Property Ltd be unnaccountable to the membership of MCT.
That should be written into the MCT Articles of Association.