It appears that questions about the ‘Stars’ of ’79 debacle (the ‘cash bash’ of convenience from which the Greenock Morton Supporters Society Ltd. has palpably tried to distance itself by blaming an apparent deficit on one ‘fall guy’) just won’t go away.

Following Chairman Stuart Duncan’s confusing comments yesterday, this post appeared on the ‘Trust’ section of – the website from which Mortonjag is currently banned:


post Yesterday, 03:21 PM
Post #1

Just a small update for you all, I know its not much but these things do take time. And most we cannot discuss until it is all over with. Hope you all bear with us in this matter


From information received, Mortonjag understands that Se65an is Mr Sean Donnelly, a Trust Board member, co-organiser with Mr Gallacher of the ‘Stars’ bash, and perceived by many as the likely successor to Mr Duncan. The posting above is certainly in keeping with such a man.
Yesterday evening the following post appeared on the ‘Jesse Ventura’ section of, the website from which Mortonjag is currently banned:
Today, 09:29 PM
Post #98
GMFC SupporterGroup: Fun Patrol
Posts: 32,564
Joined: 30-May 09
Member No.: 17,013


So am a ‘chameleon'( to big a word for me) yet you believe the word of a thief. Cool


I know I will have a happy life. Get a life.

Hate **** with blinkers on, never thought you would be one

Explain to me £300 Hospitality, when I paid it and it was £200
Explain to me £200 for T-Shirts when I paid it and it was £120
Explain to me £250 for mobile phone costs, **** me gees half
Explain to me £25 a head for bottles of vodka when no staff got any, and it only cost £8
Explain to me a drink to the value of £500 STILL IN JIM G’s House unless he has drank it and he confesses to having has yet to be returned, dispite us asking for it to be returned.
Explain £2-300 in cash he admits to having yet dispite asking has yet to be banked.

This whole thing stinks.

You don’t make it any better, and yes I has proof of all of that and more.

OK the police said not enough evidence, reason why, said person has all receipts

Mortonjag is confused. Firstly Se65an (member no.17,013) assured forum users that ‘those things do take time’, exhorting them to ‘bear with us’, and stating that ‘we cannot discuss it until it is all over with’, and then a mere six hours later, Se65an (member no. 17,013) appeared to be publishing financial information relating to the very matter which ‘cannot be discussed’.
Mortonjag fully expects that by now the Owner and Moderators of, the site from which Mortonjag is currently banned, will have dealt stringently with the impostor who clearly hi-jacked Mr Donnelly’s identity yesterday evening in what appears to have been a contemptible attempt to discredit an honest and respectable man.
The website owner and Moderators would surely NEVER permit publication of financial ‘information’ which might prejudice ongoing enquiries. They are, after all, impartial and even handed in all matters. Indeed they have a history of banning without warning posters whom they feel may harm the reputation of, just as it should be!
OR that is what they’d have us believe – but a ‘set of accounts’ WAS previously published by a poster calling himself ‘Andy M’, ‘accounts’ about which the Moderators allowed a great deal of debate and speculation. Those ‘accounts’, Mortonjag understands, should have been available only to Trust Board members. ‘Andy M’ is not on the Trust Committee, although Mortonjag is informed that he is ‘extremely close to’ Danny Goodwin, the Trust Board member who purportedly ‘ran to the Police’ in the first place.
It seems to Mortonjag that not all may be well with the ownership and Moderation of, when it comes to dealing even handedly with the ‘Stars of ’79’ issue’. Indeed Mortonjag is entirely satisfied that his current ban is the direct result of his attempting to ask legitimate questions on the message board!
Is it remotely possible that the respectable Trust Board member Se65an who commends privacy and patience, and the irascible Se65an who ‘hates **** with blinkers on’, and who publishes purportedly genuine financial information about a currently ‘sub judice’ matter, may  be one and the same person?
 …..and  if  so, is this a person suitable to hold down a position of trust?