Why don’t you go back to him and offer to be a go between. If he has evidence I have not seen that exonerates Mr. Gallagher I would be delighted to see it and if it stacks up against what I’ve already seen I’ll do my level best to make sure Mr. Gallagher is shown to be innocent in the eyes of all Morton supporters. You can’t be any fairer than that. 

I have no axe to grind in this; I just want to get to the truth. 

No problem Ernie.
You see, your email says it all.  You cannot keep a good, intelligent guy down!
I agree with your comments that there has been an injustice, particularly with reference to the ’79 night, which is where this all stems from.  I do believe that Mr Goodwin is one of, if not THE main instigator of all this.  I have actually offered my services onto the board of the Trust as I am absolutely livid in the way this whole fiasco has been dealt with from their end.  I am not saying that I can single handedly change anything within the Trust but I certainly know what should be kept “In-house” and what is for public discussion.  No one person including Mr Goodwin is the ONE VOICE for all in the Trust.
There have been a lot of mistakes made by many people both on and off the forum and both forum members and trust members and that is what needs to be addressed as a matter of sincere urgency otherwise I feel the Trust are on a very slippery slope.

Ernie, can I suggest that we perhaps meet for that drink, tea, coffee or beer whatever your preference?  It will only be me nobody esle and I give you my complete assurances that we together will get to the bottom of this.  I want the ROT out of this committee as much, if not more than you do – truthfully.
Ernie, I can meet you wherever you like and whenever you like.  You can even have someone with you if you like as I have nothing to offer other than a peacemaker in search of the truth.
Most of what you say below Ernie I agree with.  I have my own views in general regarding the Trust.  Equally I have my own views regarding Mr Donnelly, Mr Goodwin and Mr Duncan.  In particular I have some very strong views, observations and criticisms of the way SOME individuals have handled the Stars evening, to this day it pains me to see Trust members posting ANYTHING relating to the Stars event.
From: Paul Gill []
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:05 PM
To: ‘ernienewall’
Subject: Tomorrow’s meeting
Hi Ernie,
Reference to our meeting tomorrow. This was brought up at the meeting tonight discussing that you had emailed Chris asking him for a meeting also.  Chris has suggested at the meeting tonight that we could both meet with you tomorrow on behalf of the Trust and has offered his in Glasgow office as a meeting place.
Are you happy to meet the two of us as planned tomorrow?
I trust all is well and we can still meet as planned with Chris along also?
Many thanks and kind regards


That is fine and covers any eventuality.

I am not looking to cover this in any way shape or form.  In fact quite the opposite, I am trying to get EVERYTHING out in the open but between you and I am coming up against some amount of smoke screen, I’ll not say anymore other than I have my views on the reason why that is.

From: McCorkindale, Chris []
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:04 AM
To: ernienewall;
Subject: RE: Tomorrow’s meeting
Hi Ernie,
Just to clarify – I don’t know anything of the substance of any contact that has been made between Paul and yourself.  I wouldn’t like you to have the impression that any confidence has been betrayed in that respect.  When it became clear that both Paul and I had informally arranged to meet with you, it was I who suggested that we kill two birds with one stone.  I understand completely your wish to have an independent observer present at any meeting, though I must admit that my preference would be for the three of us to meet in a more informal manner than that.  Both Paul and I are new to the board, as you know, and new to each other.  There would be no sense of it being Paul and I ‘versus’ yourself, simply because Paul and I have yet to get to know one another as people, and (more importantly here) as trust/committee members; my concern is that an independent observer might create an (in my view) unnecessary barrier to the fullest possible exchange of opinion.
My own feeling is that an informal meeting, between the three of us, would be of real benefit tomorrow morning.  It would give us an opportunity to speak freely, candidly, and in strictest confidence, about the trust’s past, present and future administration.  To that end, my offer of ‘good offices’ remains open, and I’d be delighted to find you at my door (coffee in hand…) at 9.30.
If I may add one last thing.  Given the seriousness with which I (and, so far as I can tell, Paul) take my position on the board, I think ANY meeting, formal or informal, which reflects upon trust business necessarily involves us meeting with you ‘on behalf of the trust.’  Given the sensitivities which surround trust business at the moment, it would be remiss of us to think otherwise and detach ourselves from the onerous responsibilities which we have taken on in re-establishing the trust as a credible concern.
Yours in Morton,

From: []
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: My interest is in Morton and the trust has a big role to play in helping …
Hi Iain,
I would have to be invited by both parties to review the figures as an independent, reporting accountant.  I would not wish my involvement or even my lack of involvement (if one party refuses to play) to be bandied about as evidence of innocence/guilt. 
I think you understand that I would be walking a fine line and would wish there to be a clear understanding of my independence.  Obviously if the evidence came down firmly one way or the other then my evidence could be used in a court case. To be honest, I don’t think it will be that clear cut.
Ernie and I have exchanged PM’s and e-mails in the past and get on OK despite maybe some differing views on the board.  I don’t have any problem with him although he does tend to get  a hold of a bone and refuses to let go at times!
Finally, in the interests of keeping everything in the open, it would possibly be best if I was to let Stuart Duncan know that this has been suggested.  Does he know that Ernie is reviewing the figures?  I will wait until I hear from you before doing anything!
Business Recovery and Insolvency Services

From: []
Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: He is so committed to cleaning up this mess that I am sure he’ll drive do…
I have met Ernie on a confidential basis and would ask you to respect that.  I am reviewing on an independent basis (i.e. independent from the “old” trust members) such hard financial information as there is and will consider my position and what action to take after that.
Business Recovery and Insolvency Services


From: []
Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Ernie and I have exchanged PM’s and e-mails in the past and get on OK des…

In answer to your questions

1) Yes I am on the board and have been for just over a month.
2) I am aware that the solicitor acting for the trust has asked that he deal with one individual and that details of the trust’s evidence are kept confidential to prevent leakage
3) Court action will require to be backed by the board as a whole.  That backing is likely to happen unless the board are aware of evidence which suggest it should not.  In the absence of such evidence, in many ways the trust’s reputation is seen as far more important than any financial settlement.

Business Recovery and Insolvency Services

Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: FW: GMST

Attachments: 10 10 Track 10.wma


I will put the numbers together and have already done some bits but I really need the info mentioned in my last mail. I have no axe to grind, merely a desire as one who had no involvement whatsoever to get the thing settled and we can all get on with our lives.

On another tack, I know you are a jazz buff but I am not sure what variety.  I have a attached a track I rather like – a duet between Acker Bilk and Humphrey Lyttleton.  Maybe a bit old hat for some tastes but right up my street.


Business Recovery and Insolvency Services

From: []
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: GMST

Hi there,
I am up to the ears today and tomorrow as I have a couple of my files being reviewed by a court reporter who then sets my fees in the case – in effect a court auditor.  Consequently I have to spend today making sure those files are tickety boo.
I will, however, have a look at what we have over the weekend.  Do you have a copy of the final version of the spreadsheet setting out costs?  I know a number of items were disputed by the trust but its more to give me a guide in case I should miss headings.
What I want to do is to set up a sort of retrospective budget for the event – i.e. what should we have had and then compare that with what is through the bank.  I can then get a handle on what must have been paid in cash and therefore what should have been in the bucket.  If your man has any info on how many tickets should have been paid for and also what sort of margin was applied to drink price. What was the price of programmes and how many were there? How much was actually in the bucket and what did that represent?
Once I have completed this work, I will then consider my position and discuss it with Chris and Paul.
Business Recovery and Insolvency Services

From: []
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: ‘Stars of ’79’ event – ‘Trust’ Committee.
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:40 AM

I have reviewed the position as far as I can with the limited information I have. I have asked questions and await answers.  Once I have my answers, I am not sure what I can give you as I have a duty of confidentiality but I have to say that it is clear that a lot of money went missing in relation to that night both before and after the event itself.  Who is responsible is far less clear but it is the case that your man was the prime organiser of the event and so even if he is innocent, he still has questions to answer about how it was run….. 
The plus side for Jim Gallagher of me looking at it is that if it does seem to me that there is no real evidence, I will move on that inside the trust
That comment, of course applies to the whole trust board as the level of competence to run such an event was, to say the least, disappointing.
One comment I would make is that I am not sure whether your reference to Blair and Bryden was meant literally.  If it was, then that is wrong as they have clearly stated they are acting for GMST in correspondence and have taken their instructions from the chairman of that organisation.  If you are implying that despite purporting to act for the trust, in reality they are acting for Stuart & Co, at this stage I have more sympathy with that view.
I am in a difficult position with this and I hope that you appreciate that.  On one hand, our chairman is absolutely confident that he has sufficient evidence to support the position.  On the other, there is your position and the points you make.  I am a board member and bound by confidentiality and I cannot breach that obligation no matter how tempting.
Finally, on a lighter note, if you would like the rest of that Acker/Humph album, let me know and I will send you it.


From: mairidalglish []

Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 7:00 AM
To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘Paul Gill’; ‘C Dunsmore’; ‘’; ‘McCorkindale, Chris’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘ernienewall’
Subject: Trust Committee Meeting – Thursday 24th June 2010.

Importance: High

24TH JUNE 2010: F.A.O. Nick, Paul, Craig, Scott, Chris, Ewan, and Ross.

This is sent to you all as the new Trust committee members. I’ve excluded Gordon as he was personally involved in the aftermath of the ‘Stars’ event.

We are fellow Trust members with equal democratic rights. I object strongly to ‘cloak and dagger’ instructions to my elected representatives. THE TRUST HAS NO BOSS, yet unthinking respect for authority has been the enemy of truth from the outset.

Within the last forty eight hours, Stuart Duncan has openly discussed details of the ‘Stars’ evening with a non –Trust member. Please use that as your guide. It has been documented. I’m happy to meet with any of you should you wish to question me on anything, and any comments you make through any medium will be treated confidentially.

I suspect that at tonight’s meeting your attention will be focused on the actual evening of the ‘Stars’ celebration, and on the latest spreadsheet which was recently ‘cobbled together’. There is MUCH, MUCH MORE to be considered. The latest attempt to ‘nail  the culprit’ is something of a red herring.

The figures from both ‘sides’ are largely based on estimates and on circumstantial evidence. For example, much ‘mileage’ has been gained from an estimated ‘phone bill of £250, when on the other hand, the Trust’s Bar Income figure appears to have been plucked out of the air!

Going to Court could prove to be a very costly error for the Trust, and certainly requires a mandate from the Membership. The published rules are very clear on that. WE ARE A DEMOCRACY AND MUST BEHAVE DEMOCRATICALLY. In constitutional terms, independent audit can be sought at a future date if that is believed not to have been done.

A crucial piece of ‘evidence’ which may be put to you tonight concerns the sum of £600 (in used £5 notes withdrawn from the tombola) which Stuart claims was paid to one of the speakers. The story does not hold water, and will not stand scrutiny in Court. That is a fact and I’m willing to explain the reasons to any of you in confidence.  

In the original accounts submitted to the Police BY THE COMMITTEE, the same item of expenditure (which was actually £650) was assigned to J.G. and was not disputed.

Stuart now insists that he ‘REMEMBERS’ the details correctly, while conceding that they are ‘hard to prove’, whereas Jim Gallacher’s version has remained consistent throughout. Stuart has also produced at least six figures for his ‘deficit’, three of which have been in formal statements implicating J.G.

Strathclyde Police C.I.D. spent several weeks investigating the alleged theft. They had been informed that J.G. had ‘had had to come by a large sum of money to pay for water damage to his flat’, when in fact the damage was covered by his insurers! Background checks were run on him, and his employers were interviewed. Eventually they discounted criminality citing ‘bad business practice’ on the part of the Trust. At that point they indicated that the likely deficit was of the order of £1400 to £1500 – less than a third of the sum originally demanded of J.G. All of that has too readily been dismissed, in what I make no apology for describing as a subsequent and sustained ‘internet witch hunt’.

With regard to J.G.’s integrity, you are probably all aware of the recent allegation on implicating him in a previous irregularity. I have since seen a statement from an independent third party which completely exonerates him. Again I’m happy to discuss details with any of you confidentially. J.G. works as a buyer for a large oil tanker company, and in the course of his employment he is involved in substantial monetary transactions.

Something which should concern all of us as Trust members, and which I believe should be questioned this evening is Messrs. Blair and Bryden’s professional situation. They claim to represent ‘The Trust Board’, when in fact they have taken instructions from at best three individuals in a committee of fourteen.  MOST EMPHATICALLY, THEY CANNOT CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE MEMBERSHIP. That will be put to them by J.G.’s solicitor within the next few days if it has not already been done. When he contacted Blair and Bryden to discuss recent correspondence and figures, he was told that the lawyer concerned was on annual leave. I believe he returned to the office yesterday.

My concern as one of your fellow Trust members has always been that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The Trust is currently in a perilous state. If it is to survive, I believe that Stuart, Danny, and Sean must start to put the interests of the Membership before personal matters.

There is an easy way and a hard way to bring the ‘Stars’ debacle to a conclusion. The latter will probably kill the Trust. With that in mind I sincerely ask you one and all, irrespective of any differences or misunderstandings we may previously have had, to insist that before any decision is reached on further action you are made privy to every item of email correspondence between the ‘Trust’ and Jim Gallacher, and to ALL of the pertinent legal documentation.

I’ll willingly provide copies of those documents to you individually. They portray a very different picture from that which has been deliberately publicized, and I’ve already explained more formally that the terms ‘extortion’ and ‘blackmail’ have been used by J.G.’s solicitor.

I’ve suggested that tonight your attention may be deliberately focused on the events of the evening itself and on the ‘Trust’s latest version of the figures. As a fellow Trust member I advise you to think VERY CAREFULLY about the following information.  I believed from the outset that something was being hidden, and Stuart has always claimed that a ‘deficit’ exists for the night. He may well be correct, as available figures appear to indicate that £1400 to £1500 of ticket income was not banked. J.G.’s ‘ticket money’ has been accounted for. Sean was responsible for the rest.

It’s for all of you as a committee representing all of the members to ensure that things are now done in a manner which involves as little further damage as possible to everyone involved, but more importantly TO THE TRUST. You are responsible for your actions on behalf of a Membership which expects you to safeguard its interests. I ask you to take that responsibility very seriously tonight.

Ernie Newall.


From: Nick Robinson [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:19 PM
Cc: ‘Scott Gillan’; ‘Allan Feeney’;;;;;;;;;;;; ‘Sean Donnelly’
Subject: Greenock Morton Supporters Trust – J Gallagher


The Stars of 79 night

I refer to the numerous e-mails that have passed from you variously to individual members of the trust board and to groups of members.  All members of the board have now had full access to the papers and computations the “previous” board have prepared in support of their case against Jim Gallagher.  We have also considered this in the light of informal “defences” received from Mr Gallagher, sometimes via yourself.   I think it is fair to say that the new members of the board as a whole now believe that, at the very least, Mr Gallagher has a case to answer.  As a result the board is unanimous in broadly supporting the actions taken to date. 

Given that legal action may result from this position and, indeed, writs are threatened against certain individuals on the board, it is inappropriate for any of the board members to discuss the detail of this matter outside of the board and therefore none of us will be able to correspond with you in anything other than the broadest terms concerning this matter and, if we do, such correspondence will require to be copied to all board members.

If you believe that you have firm evidence to refute the board’s position it would be in everyone’s interest if that could be made available for our further consideration.

Kind regards,

Nick Robinson CA
Board Member

Business Recovery and Insolvency Services

Nick also left a ‘Voicemail’ message for Mortonjag, which was witnessed by Mortonjag’s partner and later by Jim Gallacher. He suggested that Mortonjag ‘had backed the wrong horse’ and ‘would be better to get out’. He said he’d call again later but no further call was received.