F.A.O. CHAIRMAN FEENEY.

FotoFlexer_Photo

At the A.G.M. of the Greenock Morton Supporters’ Trust on 6th September 2016, a proposal was made and seconded that the membership should hold a Special General Meeting to decide on the best way to settle the longstanding Small Claims action –  G.M.S.T. v Gallacher.  

As that decision was constitutionally binding, members were astonished, when a month later they received an email ‘circular’ signed by new Trust Chairman Allan Feeney. The full version can be read HERE, but Mortonjag wishes to comment on the apparently fraudulent nature of certain elements, which in conjunction with false information supplied to the court, may give grounds for  further investigation by the appropriate authorities.

THE ‘CIRCULAR’ IS PERCEIVED TO BE FRAUDULENT BECAUSE IT PURPORTS TO CITE ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITOR, AND WHICH WAS USED TO VETO A LEGALLY BINDING MEMBERSHIP DECISION. 

MORTONJAG INVITES TRUST CHAIRMAN ALLAN FEENEY TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’.

‘At the recent AGM, the board gave notice that they proposed to hold a special general meeting to consider and discuss the position in regard to our small claims action against Mr Gallacher’

COMPLETELY UNTRUE. THE MEMBERSHIP PASSED THE RESOLUTION TO HOLD AN S.G.M. THE BOARD ANSWERS TO THE MEMBERSHIP, NOT THE REVERSE!

‘Since then we have had legal advice that such a meeting would be inappropriate’

WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITORS, PLEASE, CHAIRMAN FEENEY?

‘Your board believe and have legal advice that we have a solid case and that a successful defence of all elements by Mr Gallacher is extremely unlikely.’

BLAIR & BRYDEN HAD ACKNOWLEDGED INFORMALLY TO HARPER MACLEOD THAT THE TRUST’S CASE WAS DESTINED TO FAIL SHOULD IT GO TO ‘PROOF’ –

SO

WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITORS, PLEASE, CHAIRMAN FEENEY?

Jim Gallacher through his solicitor is seeking to be indemnified against the costs of a successful defence of this action by the operation of clause 105….In this respect, legal advice is that clause 105 is unlikely to be enforceable both in terms of the facts of the case but also in terms of the enforceability of such a clause in Scots Law.

RULE 105 OF THE G.M.S.T. CONSTITUTION IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN A SCOTTISH SUPPORTERS’ TRUST AND ITS OFFICERS. AS SUCH IT IS FULLY ENFORCEABLE UNDER SCOTS LAW,

SO

WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITORS,  PLEASE, CHAIRMAN FEENEY?

‘We have come to the view that we cannot offer a sum which would be acceptable to both the trust and Jim Gallacher/Dr Newall.’

Allan Feeney

Chairman

FotoFlexer_Photo

NEGOTIATIONS WERE ORIGINALLY INVITED ON THE BASIS THAT, AS MR. GALLACHER HAD SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED HIMSELF AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS. HE WAS ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC APOLOGY FROM THE PERPETRATORS.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE ALWAYS OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE.

WHO WAS THE ORIGINATOR OF THAT ‘VIEW’ PLEASE, CHAIRMAN FEENEY?

On Tuesday 20th December 2016, accompanied by Trust member Gordon Dyer, Mortonjag met Mr. Harvey of Blair & Bryden LL.P. to discuss how to further progress G.M.S.T. v Gallacher.

Firstly, Mr. Harvey was challenged on an unanswered question from Harper Macleod LL.P., regarding membership ratification of the action against Mr. Gallacher. He explained that the basis for taking instructions from ‘The Trust’ was that Mr. Robinson had informed him that as Chairman, he had ‘Full delegated authority’. Blair & Bryden were content to act on the Chairman’s instructions by virtue of his position. No proof had ever been sought that the action had been ratified either by the Trust committee, or by the membership.

Mortonjag then asked Mr. Harvey about the ‘legal advice’ to nullify the Special General Meeting. When he stated that he knew nothing about the matter, Mr. Dyer provided him with a copy of the circular. As he read that, he raised an eyebrow several times before asking -‘Who is Feeney?’. He then confirmed that Blair & Bryden had had nothing to do with the matter.

THE TRUST’S SOLICITOR HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCULAR, LET ALONE THE ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ THEREIN. 

WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITORS, PLEASE, CHAIRMAN FEENEY?

FotoFlexer_Photo

For the previous twelve weeks Blair & Bryden had continued to take instructions from Mr. Robinson, on the basis of  his ‘full delegated authority’, unaware of his resignation on September 6th.

He had failed to notify the Trust’s solicitors of that fact, and in the interim had provided false information for the court regarding ‘due diligence’ prior to the raising of G.M.S.T. v Gallacher. 

SEVEN TOADLY SINS!

1/ Pursuing Jim Gallacher after he had been exonerated by a C.I.D. investigation whilst ‘sheltering’ co-organiser, Sean Donnelly, who could not account for £1210 of ticket income.

2/ Providing false information to the court and to Mr. Gallacher’s Trustee after having raised a Small Claims without doing ‘due diligence’, and without having stated any loss.

3/ Certifying disputed accounts supported only by perjurious witness statements and submitting those to the court and to Mr. Gallacher’s Trustee.

4/ Making an unsubstantiable claim on Mr. Gallacher’s Trust Deed in the full knowledge that no debt existed, doing so in order to evade a hearing of evidence in court, and depriving true creditors of a rightful dividend.

5/ Attempting to influence, and apparently colluding with Mr. Gallacher’s Trustee in order to obtain a favourable outcome for the Trust’s claim.

6/ Failing to hold an A.G.M. in 2015 and failing to provide relevant documentation for membership approval.

7/ Providing false information to the Trust membership regarding ‘legal information’ which did not come from the Trust’s solicitor, in order to obstruct a properly convened S.G.M. 

FotoFlexer_Photo

NEXT TIME – interesting quotations and much more!